Factors associated with healthcare providers’ observance of infection prevention and control measures in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) prompted renewed attention to infection prevention and control (IPC) programs in healthcare settings. Objective: This study aimed to investigate associations between factors derived from a hospital safety climate scale for respiratory diseases and Canadian healthcare providers’ (HCPs) hand hygiene and eye protection practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of the COVID-19 Cohort Study (2020–2023) of acute care HCPs providing direct patient care. Results: 100% compliance with Canadian guidelines for the use of eye protection was reported by 73.7%, hand hygiene before entering rooms by 65.3%, and after exiting patient rooms by 81.8% of the 1,361 participants. The adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) for hand hygiene after exiting a patient room was significantly higher for participants who rated organizational support for health and safety higher. The aIRR for the use of eye protection was significantly higher for people who rated their hospital as having fewer job hindrances related to completing their job while using protective equipment and reported higher ratings of their organization’s availability of protective supplies. Discussion: Our data support the association between HCPs’ perception of hospital safety-related organizational factors and the use of eye protection and practice of hand hygiene. These findings also suggest that ease of access impacts the use of eye protection. Conclusions: Although training and making equipment available are necessary, the perception of organizational factors, namely support for health and safety and absence of job hindrances, are important for improving the use of eye protection and hand hygiene.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".