Impact of a new dressing protocol for the prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections in one neonatal intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Newborns in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are uniquely vulnerable to hospital-acquired infections due to their extremely fragile skin, immature immune systems, and common long-term hospitalizations.These infants often require prolonged use of central venous catheters (CVCs) to administer fluids, drugs, and parenteral nutrition.Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) can arise from these CVCs and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the NICU.Preterm infants are the most susceptible to developing CLABSIs due to prolonged CVC use and the requirement for CVC dressing changes, which commonly disrupt their already poor skin integrity.This increases the risk for infections, including CLABSIs.The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation is for transparent CVC dressings to be changed at least every seven days, or immediately if visibly wet, soiled, or loose.However, there is a high likelihood, especially in extremely preterm infants (<28 weeks gestation), for skin barrier degradation following each dressing removal, resulting in increased CLABSI risk.The Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine (CHUSJ), a level III-IV NICU in Montréal, Canada, introduced a new CVC dressing into its NICU with the goal of achieving the lowest possible CLABSI rates.CVC dressings were changed from Smith+Nephew IV3000 to the 3M™ Tegaderm™ I.V. Advanced Securement Dressing 1682, which is especially designed for superior catheter securement and thus should decrease the frequency of needed dressing changes.This new dressing was fully implemented in the unit as of January 1, 2023, following a three-stage intervention rollout within the unit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".