Dataset Information

Infection Prevention and Control Programs in US Nursing Homes: Results of a National Survey.

ABSTRACT: The objectives of this study were to (1) obtain a national perspective of the current state of nursing home (NH) infection prevention and control (IPC) programs and (2) examine differences in IPC program characteristics for NHs that had and had not received an infection control deficiency citation.A national cross-sectional survey of randomly sampled NHs was conducted and responses were linked with Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting (CASPER) and NH Compare data.Surveys were completed and returned by 990 NHs (response rate 39%) between December 2013 and December 2014.The person in charge of the IPC program at each NH completed the survey.The survey consisted of 34 items related to respondent demographics, IPC program staffing, stability of the workforce, resources and challenges, and resident care and employee processes. Facility characteristics and infection control deficiency citations were assessed using CASPER and NH Compare data.Most respondents had at least 2 responsibilities in addition to those related to infection control (54%) and had no specific IPC training (61%). Although many practices and processes were consistent with infection prevention guidelines for NHs, there was wide variation in programs across the United States. Approximately 36% of responding facilities had received an infection control deficiency citation. NHs that received citations had infection control professionals with less experience (P = .01) and training (P = .02) and were less likely to provide financial resources for continuing education in infection control (P = .01).The findings demonstrate that a lack of adequately trained infection prevention personnel is an important area for improvement. Furthermore, there is a need to identify specific evidence-based practices to reduce infection risk in NHs.

SUBMITTER: Herzig CT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4696513 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Infection Prevention and Control Programs in US Nursing Homes: Results of a National Survey.

Herzig Carolyn T A CT Stone Patricia W PW Castle Nicholas N Pogorzelska-Maziarz Monika M Larson Elaine L EL Dick Andrew W AW

Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 20160101 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objectives of this study were to (1) obtain a national perspective of the current state of nursing home (NH) infection prevention and control (IPC) programs and (2) examine differences in IPC program characteristics for NHs that had and had not received an infection control deficiency citation.<h4>Design</h4>A national cross-sectional survey of randomly sampled NHs was conducted and responses were linked with Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting (CASPER) an ...[more]

PMID: 26712489

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the extent to which acute care hospitals in the Netherlands have adopted recommended practices to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI).MethodsBetween 18 July 2017 and 31 October 2017, we surveyed the infection prevention teams of all acute care hospitals in the Netherlands. The survey instrument was based on the 'Translating Healthcare-Associated Infection Prevention Research into Practice' (TRIP) questionnaire and adapted to the Dutch context. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the reported regular use of CAUTI, CLABSI, VAP, and CDI prevention practices as well as the hospital characteristics.ResultsOut of 72 eligible hospitals, 47 (65.3%) responded. Surveillance systems for monitoring CAUTI, CLABSI, VAP, and CDI were present in 17.8, 95.4, 26.2, and 77.3% of hospitals, respectively. Antimicrobial stewardship programs have been established in 91.5% of participating hospitals. For CAUTI, the majority of hospitals regularly used aseptic technique during catheter insertion (95%) and portable bladder ultrasound scanners (86.1%). Intermittent catheterization and catheter stop-orders were regularly used by 65.8 and 62.2% of hospitals. For CLABSI, all hospitals regularly used maximum sterile barrier precautions and chlorhexidine gluconate for insertion site antisepsis. Avoidance of the femoral site for central line insertions was regularly used by 65.9% of hospitals. Urinary catheters and central-lines impregnated with antibiotics or antiseptics were rarely used (≤ 5%). Selective decontamination strategies for preventing VAP were used in 84% of hospitals. With the exception of disposable thermometers (31.8%), all prevention practices to prevent CDI were regularly used by more than 80% of hospitals.ConclusionsMost Dutch hospitals report regular use of recommended practices for preventing CLABSI and CDI. Several specific practices to prevent CAUTI and VAP were less frequently used, however, providing an opportunity for improvement.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify facility- and individual-level predictors of nursing home safety culture. DESIGN:Cross-sectional survey of individuals within facilities. SETTING:Nursing homes participating in the national Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Long-Term Care: Healthcare-Associated Infections/Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections Project. PARTICIPANTS:Responding nursing home staff (N = 14,177) from 170 (81%) of 210 participating facilities. MEASUREMENTS:Staff responses to the Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture (NHSOPS), focused on five domains (teamwork, training and skills, communication openness, supervisor expectations, organizational learning) and individual respondent characteristics (occupation, tenure, hours worked), were merged with data on facility characteristics (from the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting): ownership, chain membership, percentage residents on Medicare, bed size. Data were analyzed using multivariate hierarchical models. RESULTS:Nursing assistants rated all domains worse than administrators did (P < .001), with the largest differences for communication openness (24.3 points), teamwork (17.4 points), and supervisor expectations (16.1 points). Clinical staff rated all domains worse than administrators. Nonprofit ownership was associated with worse training and skills (by 6.0 points, P =.04) and communication openness (7.3 points, P =.004), and nonprofit and chain ownership were associated with worse supervisor expectations (5.2 points, P =.001 and 3.2 points, P =.03, respectively) and organizational learning (5.6 points, P =.009 and 4.2 points, P = .03). The percentage of variation in safety culture attributable to facility characteristics was less than 22%, with ownership having the strongest effect. CONCLUSION:Perceptions of safety culture vary widely among nursing home staff, with administrators consistently perceiving better safety culture than clinical staff who spend more time with residents. Reporting safety culture scores according to occupation may be more important than facility-level scores alone to describe and assess barriers, facilitators, and changes in safety culture.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare-associated infections (HAI) pose a burden on healthcare providers worldwide. To prevent HAI and strengthen infection prevention and control (IPC) structures, the WHO has developed a variety of tools and guidelines. Recently, the WHO released the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF), a questionnaire-like tool designed for assessing IPC structures at the facility level. The IPCAF reflects the eight WHO core components of IPC. Data on the implementation of IPC measures in German hospitals are scarce. Therefore, it was our objective to utilize the IPCAF in order to gather information on the current state of IPC implementation in German hospitals, as well as to promote the IPCAF to a broad audience.MethodsThe National Reference Center for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections (NRZ) sent a translated version of the IPCAF to 1472 acute care hospitals in Germany. Data entry and transfer to the NRZ was done electronically between October and December 2018. The IPCAF was conceived in a way that depending on the selected answers a score was calculated, with 0 being the lowest possible and 800 the highest possible score. Depending on the overall score, the IPCAF allocated hospitals to four different "IPC levels": inadequate, basic, intermediate, and advanced.ResultsA total of 736 hospitals provided a complete dataset and were included in the data analysis. The overall median score of all hospitals was 690, which corresponded to an advanced level of IPC. Only three hospitals (0.4%) fell into the category "basic", with 111 hospitals (15.1%) being "intermediate" and 622 hospitals (84.5%) being "advanced". In no case was the category "inadequate" allocated. More profound differences were found between the respective core components. Components on multimodal strategies and workload, staffing, ward design and bed occupancy revealed the lowest scores.ConclusionsIPC key aspects in general are well established in Germany. Potentials for improvement were identified particularly with regard to workload and staffing. Insufficient implementation of multimodal strategies was found to be another relevant deficit. Our survey represents a successful attempt at promoting the IPCAF and encouraging hospitals to utilize WHO tools for self-assessment.

Dataset Information

Infection Prevention and Control Programs in US Nursing Homes: Results of a National Survey.

Publications

Infection Prevention and Control Programs in US Nursing Homes: Results of a National Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets