Visual performance at passive level crossings with long sighting distances

The third edition of the Australian Standard AS1742 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 7 provides a method of calculating the sighting distance required to safely proceed at passive level crossings based on the physics of moving vehicles. This required distance becomes greater with higher line speeds and slower, heavier vehicles so that it may return quite a long sighting distance. However, at such distances, there are also concerns around whether drivers would be able to reliably identify a train in order to make an informed decision regarding whether it would be safe to proceed across the level crossing. In order to determine whether drivers are able to make reliable judgements to proceed in these circumstances, this study assessed the distance at which a train first becomes identifiable to a driver as well as their, ability to detect the movement of the train. A site was selected in Victoria, and 36 participants with good visual acuity observed 4 trains in the 100-140 km/h range. While most participants could detect the train from a very long distance (2.2 km on average), they could only detect that the train was moving at much shorter distances (1.3 km on average). Large variability was observed between participants, with 4 participants consistently detecting trains later than other participants. Participants tended to improve in their capacity to detect the presence of the train with practice, but a similar trend was not observed for detection of the movement of the train. Participants were consistently poor at accurately judging the approach speed of trains, with large underestimations at all investigated distances.

Novel application of a discrete choice experiment to identify preferences for a national healthcare-associated infection surveillance programme: A cross-sectional study

Objective: To identify key stakeholder preferences and priorities when considering a national healthcare-associated infection (HAI) surveillance programme through the use of a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Setting: Australia does not have a national HAI surveillance programme. An online web-based DCE was developed and made available to participants in Australia. Participants: A sample of 184 purposively selected healthcare workers based on their senior leadership role in infection prevention in Australia. Primary and secondary outcomes: A DCE requiring respondents to select 1 HAI surveillance programme over another based on 5 different characteristics (or attributes) in repeated hypothetical scenarios. Data were analysed using a mixed logit model to evaluate preferences and identify the relative importance of each attribute. Results: A total of 122 participants completed the survey (response rate 66%) over a 5-week period. Excluding 22 who mismatched a duplicate choice scenario, analysis was conducted on 100 responses. The key findings included: 72% of stakeholders exhibited a preference for a surveillance programme with continuous mandatory core components (mean coefficient 0.640 (p<0.01)), 65% for a standard surveillance protocol where patient-level data are collected on infected and non-infected patients (mean coefficient 0.641 (p<0.01)), and 92% for hospital-level data that are publicly reported on a website and not associated with financial penalties (mean coefficient 1.663 (p<0.01)). Conclusions: The use of the DCE has provided a unique insight to key stakeholder priorities when considering a national HAI surveillance programme. The application of a DCE offers a meaningful method to explore and quantify preferences in this setting.