Utility of environmental sampling for the prevention of transmission of vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE) in hospitals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE) have been shown to contaminate environmental surfaces in the room of a patient infected or colonized with VRE there is limited evidence that links environmental contamination with acquisition. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a policy of environmental sampling and room closure is more effective than cleaning and visual inspection of the room without culturing, in preventing the transmission of VRE to the next admitted patient. METHODS: The rooms of consecutive patients with VRE were alternatively managed according to either Protocol I (terminal cleaning, inspection and admission of new patient(s)) or Protocol II (terminal cleaning, environmental cultures and closing of the room pending negative results). The next admitted patient to all rooms had rectal swabs obtained for VRE within 24 hours of admission, three to five days after admission and upon discharge from the room and/or the facility. The proportion of patients who acquired the same strain of VRE after being admitted to rooms handled according to either Protocol I or Protocol II was compared. RESULTS: The risk of acquisition of VRE by patients admitted to a room managed according to Protocol I (1/19) was not significantly different than for patients admitted to a room managed according to Protocol II (0/12) (p=0.99). At least one positive environmental culture was obtained in 8/14 (57.1%) rooms managed according to Protocol II. CONCLUSIONS: Although VRE may be detected in the hospital environment there is insufficient evidence to conclude that routinely obtaining negative environmental cultures from the room of a patient infected or colonized with the organism is more effective in preventing VRE transmission to subsequent patients, provided the room is adequately cleaned and disinfected.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".