MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415700246 · doi:10.1017/ice.2025.10228

Preparedness for <i>Candida auris</i> in Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP) hospitals, 2024

2025· article· en· W4415700246 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Charlie Tan, Amrita Bharat, Erin McGill, Robyn Mitchell, Olivia Varsaneux, Kristine Cannon, Marthe Charles, Jeannette Comeau, Ian Davis, Johan Delport, Tanis C. Dingle, Philippe J. Dufresne, Chelsey Ellis, Jennifer Ellison, Amna Faheem, Charles Frenette, Linda Hoang, Susy Hota, Kevin Katz, Pamela Kibsey, Julianne V. Kus, Bonita E. Lee, Xena X. Li, Yves Longtin, Kathy Malejczyk, Shazia Masud, Dominik Mertz, Sonja Musto, K. G. Jayarama Naik, Senthuri Paramalingam, Susan M. Poutanen, Dale Purych, Stephanie Smith, Jocelyn A. Srigley, Reena Titoria, Jen Tomlinson, Xuetao Wang, Titus Wong, Deborah Yamamura, Allison McGeer

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsWest Park Healthcare CentreMcMaster UniversitySurrey Memorial HospitalIsland HealthSaskatchewan HealthStollery Children's HospitalBC Children's HospitalFraser HealthUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of AlbertaThe Scarborough HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of CalgaryHealth Sciences CentreAlberta Health ServicesJewish General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreBC Centre for Disease ControlPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcGill University Health CentreNorth York General HospitalSinai Health SystemInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecMoncton HospitalDalhousie UniversitySaskatchewan Health AuthorityProvincial Health Services AuthorityB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreVancouver Coastal HealthWestern University
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsPreparednessMEDLINEEpidemiologic SurveillanceInfection controlPublic healthResource constraints

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: To assess preparedness for Candida auris in Canadian hospitals. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP) hospitals. Methods: In June 2024, surveys were e-mailed to the infection prevention and control departments of 109 CNISP hospitals and their 33 microbiology laboratories. The surveys assessed policies for patient screening/management and laboratory processes supporting C. auris transmission prevention. Results were compared to a similar 2018 survey. Results: All 109 hospitals and 32/33 laboratories responded. Most hospitals had policies for admission screening (80%, 87/109) and policies/defined plans for post-exposure screening (95%, 104/109). Policy presence increased from 18% to 73% in 56 hospitals completing both 2018 and 2024 surveys ( P < 0.001). Among hospitals with admission screening policies, 69% (60/87) screened for recent out-of-country hospitalization. All but one hospital implemented transmission-based precautions for cases; 70% (76/109) continued precautions indefinitely. Overall, 94% (99/105; excluding hospitals with exclusively private rooms) and 55% (60/109) of hospitals screened roommates and wardmates, respectively. Frequency and timing of screening and policies regarding precautions for exposed patients varied. All hospitals used axilla and groin swabs, at minimum, for screening. Most (81%, 26/32) laboratories identified all clinically significant Candida isolates to species level, increasing from 48% to 85% ( P < 0.001) in the 27 laboratories completing both 2018 and 2024 surveys. Twenty-four laboratories (75%) had standard operating procedures for processing screening specimens; 96% (23/24) used direct plating onto chromogenic agar. Conclusions: Despite progress in C. auris preparedness, areas for improvement remain. Variability in practice may be related to evidence gaps and resource constraints.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection Control and Hospital EpidemiologySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207