MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W94071709 · doi:10.5055/ajdm.2007.0029

Ready, aye ready? Support mechanisms for healthcare workers in emergency planning: A critical gap analysis of three hospital emergency plans

2007· article· en· W94071709 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Disaster Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistHealth carePandemicPersonal protective equipmentMedicineContext (archaeology)Medical emergencyFocus groupInfection controlNursingBusinessPsychologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)DiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In response to the 2003 global outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and the threat of pandemic influenza, Canadian hospitals have been actively developing and revising their emergency plans. Healthcare workers are a particularly vulnerable group at risk of occupational exposure during infectious disease outbreaks, as seen during SARS and as documented/reported in the recent National Survey of the Work and Health of Nurses (Statistics Canada, 2006). Approximately one third of Canadian nurses identified job strain and poor health, related to their work environment. Three years after SARS, this article presents a critical analysis of the gaps of three hospital pandemic influenza plans in the context of established organizational supports for healthcare workers. METHODS: Hospital pandemic influenza plans were obtained from institutional representatives in three Ontario cities. Qualitative gap analysis of these plans was conducted using a checklist of 11 support categories, developed from a review of existing literature and findings from a previous study of focus groups with emergency and critical care nurses. RESULTS: Support mechanisms were identified in the plans; however, gaps were evident in preparation for personal protective equipment, education and informational support, and support during quarantine. Hospital emergency planning could be more robust by including additional organizational supports such as emotional/psychological support services, delineating management responsibilities, human resources, vaccine/anti-viral planning, recognition/compensation, media strategies, and professional development. CONCLUSIONS: Since the 2003 SARS outbreak, hospitals have invested in pandemic planning, as evidenced by the comprehensive plans examined here. Organizational support mechanisms for healthcare workers were included in these hospital plans; however, the gaps identified here may have serious implications for employee health and safety, and overall response during a large scale infectious disease outbreak. The authors provide a number of recommendations for consideration in infectious disease pandemic plan development to better support the healthcare workers in their roles as first responders.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.377 · 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