Dataset Information

A national survey on the implementation of key infection prevention and control structures in German hospitals: results from 736 hospitals conducting the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Healthcare-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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusions

IPC 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.

SUBMITTER: Aghdassi SJS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6505265 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A national survey on the implementation of key infection prevention and control structures in German hospitals: results from 736 hospitals conducting the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF).

Aghdassi Seven Johannes Sam SJS Hansen Sonja S Bischoff Peter P Behnke Michael M Gastmeier Petra P

Antimicrobial resistance and infection control 20190508

<h4>Background</h4>Healthcare-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 imple ...[more]

PMID: 31080588

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInfection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial for patient safety. The World Health Organization (WHO) has released various tools to promote IPC. In 2018, the WHO released the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) that enables acute care healthcare facilities to evaluate IPC structures and practices. Data regarding IPC implementation in Austria are scarce. To deliver insights into this topic and promote the IPCAF within the Austrian IPC community, we decided to invite all Austrian hospitals participating in the German nosocomial infection surveillance system to conduct a self-assessment using the WHO IPCAF.MethodsThe IPCAF follows the eight WHO core components of IPC. A German translation of the IPCAF was sent to 127 Austrian acute care hospitals. The survey period was from October to December 2018. Participation in the survey, data entry and transfer to the German national reference center for surveillance of healthcare-associated infections was on a voluntary basis.ResultsAltogether, 65 Austrian hospitals provided a complete dataset. The overall median IPCAF score of all hospitals was 620 (of a possible maximum score of 800), which corresponded to an advanced level of IPC. Of the 65 hospitals, 38 achieved an advanced IPC level. Deeper analysis of the different core components yielded diverse results. Scores were lowest for core components on multimodal strategies for implementation of IPC interventions, and IPC education and training. Around 26% (n = 17) of hospitals reported that the local IPC team was not steadily supported by an IPC committee. Senior clinical staff was not present in the IPC committee in 23% (n = 15) of hospitals. Only 26% (n = 17) of hospitals reported employing at least one IPC professional per ≤250 beds. Surveillance for multidrug-resistant pathogens was not conducted in 26% (n = 17) of hospitals.ConclusionsImplementation of IPC key aspects is generally at a high level in Austria. However, potentials for improvement were demonstrated, most prominently with regard to staffing, IPC education and training, effective implementation of multimodal strategies, and involvement of professional groups. Our survey demonstrated that the IPCAF is a useful tool for IPC self-assessment and can uncover deficits even in a high-income setting like Austria.

Project description:BackgroundThe current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to underscore the inadequacy of infection prevention and control (IPC) and the importance of its sound establishment in healthcare facilities. The Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) by the World Health Organization allows systematic assessment of IPC capacity in healthcare facilities and has been applied in many national-level surveys. This study aims to assess the IPC capacity of Korean hospitals as well as their strengths and pitfalls by analyzing the results of the first government-led nationwide IPC survey in comparison to the IPCAF frame.MethodsThe Korean National Infection Prevention and Control Survey (KNIPCS) was conducted from February to March 2018. The survey questionnaire for KNIPCS was developed through a series of expert consultations and a round of pre-testing in two randomly selected hospitals. The survey questionnaire was distributed to a total of 2108 hospitals. Although the survey preceded the release of IPCAF, its contents complied with IPCAF to a large extent, allowing exploration of its results with regards to IPCAF.ResultsAll tertiary hospitals and 96.5% of general hospitals had implemented IPC teams, whereas the percentage was lower for long-term care hospitals (6.3%). A similar trend was observed for IPC surveillance and monitoring activities across hospital types. The percentage of interactive IPC training was lower than 30% in all hospital groups. Disinfection was frequently monitored in all hospital types (e.g. 97.3% in general hospitals and 85.3% in long-term care hospitals). However, activities regarding antimicrobial resistance, such as multi-drug resistant pathogen screening, were weak in hospitals (25%) and long-term care hospitals (25%), compared to tertiary hospitals (83.3%) and general hospitals (57.7%).ConclusionsIn general, essential IPC structures, such as IPC teams and programs, were well in place in most tertiary and general hospitals in Korea. These hospital groups also actively conducted various IPC activities. As most previous legislative and multimodal policy measures have targeted these hospital groups, we speculate that future policy efforts should encompass long-term care hospitals and smaller-sized hospitals to strengthen the IPC capacity of these hospital groups. Efforts should also be put forth to promote IPC training and antimicrobial activities.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) affect patients in acute-care hospitals worldwide. No systematic review has been published on adoption and implementation of the infection prevention and control (IPC) key components. The objective of this systematic review was to assess adoption and implementation of the three areas issued by the "National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China" in acute-care hospitals in Mainland China, and to compare the findings with the key and core components on effective IPC, issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO).MethodsWe searched PubMed and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure for reports on the areas "structure, organisation and management of IPC", "education and training in IPC", and "surveillance of outcome and process indicators in IPC" in acute-care facilities in Mainland China, published between January 2012 and October 2017. Results were stratified into primary care hospitals and secondary/tertiary care hospitals.ResultsA total of 6580 publications were retrieved, of which 56 were eligible for final analysis. Most of them were survey reports (n = 27), followed by observational studies (n = 17), and interventional studies (n = 12), either on hand hygiene promotion and best practice interventions (n = 7), or by applying education and training programmes (n = 5). More elements on IPC were reported by secondary/tertiary care hospitals than by primary care hospitals. Gaps were identified in the lack of detailing on organisation and management of IPC, education and training activities, and targets of surveillance such as central line-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator associated pneumonia, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and Clostridium difficile infections. Information was available on adoption and implementation of 7 out of the 10 ECDC key components, and 7 out of the 8 WHO core components.ConclusionTo variable degrees, there is evidence on implementation of all NHCPRC areas and of most of the ECDC key components and the WHO core components in acute care hospitals in Mainland China. The results are encouraging, but gaps in effective IPC were identified that may be used to guide future national policy-making in Mainland China.

Project description:BackgroundPapua New Guinea (PNG) is one of the 14 countries categorised as having a triple burden of tuberculosis (TB), multidrug-resistant TB (MDR TB), and TB-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infections. TB infection prevention and control (TB-IPC) guidelines were introduced in 2011 by the National Health Department of PNG. This study assesses the implementation of this policy in a sample of district hospitals in two regions of PNG.MethodsThe implementation of TB-IPC policy was assessed using a survey method based on the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC assessment framework (IPCAF) to implement the WHO's IPC core components. The study included facility assessment at ten district hospitals and validation observations of TB-IPC practices.ResultsOverall, implementation of IPC and TB-IPC guidelines was inadequate in participating facilities. Though 80% of facilities had an IPC program, many needed more clearly defined IPC objectives, budget allocation, and yearly work plans. In addition, they did not include senior facility managers in the IPC committee. 80% (n = 8 of 10) of hospitals had no IPC training and education; 90% had no IPC committee to support the IPC team; 70% had no surveillance protocols to monitor infections, and only 20% used multimodal strategies for IPC activities. Similarly, 70% of facilities had a TB-IPC program without a proper budget and did not include facility managers in the TB-IPC team; 80% indicated that patient flow poses a risk of TB transmission; 70% had poor ventilation systems; 90% had inadequate isolation rooms; and though 80% have personal protective equipment available, frequent shortages were reported.ConclusionsThe WHO-recommended TB-IPC policy is not effectively implemented in most of the participating district hospitals. Improvements in implementing and disseminating TB-IPC guidelines, monitoring TB-IPC practices, and systematic healthcare worker training are essential to improve TB-IPC guidelines' operationalisation in health settings to reduce TB prevalence in PNG.

Project description:AIM:The Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) updated the recommendations for the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections in 2015. This article will describe the implementation of these recommendations in Frankfurt's hospitals in autumn, 2015. MATERIAL AND METHODS:In two non-ICU wards of each of Frankfurt's 17 hospitals, inspections were performed using a checklist based on the new KRINKO recommendations. In one large hospital, a total of 5 wards were inspected. The inspections covered the structure and process quality (operating instructions, training, indication, the placement and maintenance of catheters) and the demonstration of the preparation for insertion of a catheter using an empty bed and an imaginary patient, or insertion in a model. RESULTS:Operating instructions were available in all hospital wards; approximately half of the wards regularly performed training sessions. The indications were largely in line with the recommendations of the KRINKO. Alternatives to urinary tract catheters were available and were used more often than the urinary tract catheters themselves (15.9% vs. 13.5%). In accordance with the recommendations, catheters were placed without antibiotic prophylaxis or the instillation of antiseptic or antimicrobial substances or catheter flushing solutions. The demonstration of catheter placement was conscientiously performed. Need for improvement was seen in the daily documentation and the regular verification of continuing indication for a urinary catheter, as well as the omission of regular catheter change. CONCLUSION:Overall, the recommendations of the KRINKO on the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections were adequately implemented. However, it cannot be ruled out that in situations with time pressure and staff shortage, the handling of urinary tract catheters may be of lower quality than that observed during the inspections, when catheter insertion was done by two nurses. Against this background, a sufficient number of qualified staff and regular ward rounds by the hygiene staff appear recommendable.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has again demonstrated the critical role of effective infection prevention and control (IPC) implementation to combat infectious disease threats. Standards such as the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC minimum requirements offer a basis, but robust evidence on effective IPC implementation strategies in low-resource settings remains limited. We aimed to qualitatively assess IPC implementation themes in these settings.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with IPC experts from low-resource settings, guided by a standardised questionnaire. Applying a qualitative inductive thematic analysis, IPC implementation examples from interview transcripts were coded, collated into sub-themes, grouped again into broad themes, and finally reviewed to ensure validity. Sub-themes appearing ≥ 3 times in data were highlighted as frequent IPC implementation themes and all findings were summarised descriptively.ResultsInterviews were conducted with IPC experts from 29 countries in six WHO regions. Frequent IPC implementation themes including the related critical actions to achieve the WHO IPC core components included: (1) To develop IPC programmes: continuous advocacy with leadership, initial external technical assistance, stepwise approach to build resources, use of catalysts, linkages with other programmes, role of national IPC associations and normative legal actions; (2) To develop guidelines: early planning for their operationalization, initial external technical assistance and local guideline adaption; (3) To establish training: attention to methods, fostering local leadership, and sustainable health system linkages such as developing an IPC career path; (4) To establish health care-associated (HAI) surveillance: feasible but high-impact pilots, multidisciplinary collaboration, mentorship, careful consideration of definitions and data quality, and "data for action"; (5) To implement multimodal strategies: clear communication to explain multimodal strategies, attention to certain elements, and feasible but high-impact pilots; (6) To develop monitoring, audit and feedback: feasible but high-impact pilots, attention to methods such as positive (not punitive) incentives and "data for action"; (7) To improve staffing and bed occupancy: participation of national actors to set standards and attention to methods such as use of data; and (8) To promote built environment: involvement of IPC professionals in facility construction, attention to multimodal strategy elements, and long-term advocacy.ConclusionsThese IPC implementation themes offer important qualitative evidence for IPC professionals to consider.

Project description:BackgroundPopulations have varying needs and expectations concerning health care that result from diversity characteristics such as a migrant background, gender identity, disability, and age. These needs and expectations must be considered to ensure adequate utilization and quality of health services. Approaches to address diversity do exist, however, little is known about the extent to which they are implemented by health care facilities. The present study aims to examine, which measures and structures hospitals in Germany employ to address diversity, as well as which barriers they encounter in doing so.MethodsA mixed-mode survey among administration managers of all registered German hospitals (excluding rehabilitation hospitals; n = 1125) was conducted between May and October 2019 using pen-and-paper and online questionnaires. Results were analyzed descriptively.ResultsData from n = 112 hospitals were available. While 57.1% of hospitals addressed diversity in their mission statement and 59.9% included diversity considerations in quality management, dedicated working groups and diversity commissioners were less prevalent (15.2% each). The majority of hospitals offered multi-lingual admission and exit interviews (59.8%), treatments or therapies (57.1%), but only few had multi-lingual meal plans (12.5%) and seminars or presentations (11.6%). While 41.1% of the hospitals offered treatment and/or nursing exclusively by staff of the same sex, only 17.0% offered group therapies for both sexes separately. According to the managers, the main barriers were a lack of financial resources (54.5%), a lack of incentives from the funding providers (49.1%), and organizational difficulties (45.5%). Other reported barriers were a lack of conviction of the necessity among decision makers (28.6%) and a lack of motivation among staff members (19.6%).ConclusionsAdministration managers from only a small proportion of hospitals participated in our survey on diversity sensitivity. Even hospitals of those who did are currently not adequately addressing the diversity of staff members and patients. Most hospitals address diversity on an ideational level, practical measures are not widely implemented. Existing measures suggest that most hospitals have no overarching concept to address diversity in a broader sense. The main reported barriers relate to economic aspects, a lack of support in organizing and implementing corresponding measures and a lack of awareness or motivation.

Dataset Information

A national survey on the implementation of key infection prevention and control structures in German hospitals: results from 736 hospitals conducting the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF).

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A national survey on the implementation of key infection prevention and control structures in German hospitals: results from 736 hospitals conducting the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets