{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024165707710011506, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.350364963503649, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Hygiene between tradition and implementation].

The basis of evidence for hygiene rules implemented in hospitals is traditionally small. This is not only because there is little theoretical knowledge on the reciprocal influence between a single hygienic mistake/a single microbial input and the manifestation of a nosocomial infection. There are also not enough clinical studies, especially on complex hygiene questions, to determine whether special measures (e.g., septic rooms)can compensate for deficits in hygiene practice. Furthermore, it would be necessary to designate security buffers distinctly. In-house traditions are able to stabilize hygienic behavior in an excellent manner. They should be fostered and not disparaged as myths. Discussions of experts should not be conducted in public; that is disastrous for the everyday work of physicians in hospitals.