Project description:BackgroundThe devolution of health to Scotland in 1999, led for the first time in the NHS, to different priorities and success indicators for infection prevention and control (IPC). This project sought to understand, compare and evaluate the national IPC priorities and available indicators of success.AimTo identify the national IPC priorities alongside national indicators of success.MethodsCritical analysis of nationally produced documents and publicly available infection-related data up to March 2018.FindingsFor both NHS Scotland and England the local and national IPC priorities are evidenced by: (1) people being cared for in an IPC-safe environment; (2) staff following IPC-safe procedures; and (3) organisations continuously striving not just to attain standards, but to improve on them. If national agencies that produce data were also charged with using a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) model, then there would be further opportunities to detect and improve on successes.
Project description:BackgroundEffective infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes comprise a hierarchy of preventive measures, one of which is appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). A poor understanding of the role of PPE and sub-optimal use may fail to prevent or even increase pathogen transmission during routine care or an infectious disease outbreak. Variability in delivery and content of IPC and PPE education and training across organisations can lead to confusion, unsafe practice, and lack of confidence among clinicians. In a national survey we explored the perspectives of Australian and New Zealand IPC professionals on the value and feasibility of a national IPC training and monitoring programme to improve and standardise PPE practice and raise the profile of IPC.MethodsA population-based online survey that examined hospital PPE training programmes was distributed to members of three major Australasian organisations representing IPC professionals. Quantitative results of the survey have been reported previously. This paper is a qualitative analysis of responses to two open-ended questions about a national approach to training in IPC and the use of PPE.ResultsMost respondents agreed that standardising IPC and PPE training could achieve more consistent practice nationally, supported through the provision of educational resources. Including competency in the use of PPE in mandatory IPC standards would assist in improving the practice and raising the profile of IPC more generally.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that that there is support for national programmes and standards for use of PPE in Australia and New Zealand.
Project description: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.
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare-associated infection (HAI) is a common and largely preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unprecedented challenges to health systems. We conducted a national survey to ascertain hospital characteristics and the use of HAI prevention measures in Israel.MethodsWe e-mailed surveys to infection prevention and control (IPC) leads of acute care hospitals in Israel. The survey included questions about the use of practices to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). The survey also assessed COVID-19 impact and healthcare worker well-being.ResultsIPC leads from 15 of 24 invited hospitals (63%) completed the survey. Only one-third of respondents reported strong support for IPC from hospital leadership. Although several prevention practices were used by all hospitals (e.g., maximum sterile barrier precautions for CLABSI and real-time assessment of environmental cleaning for CDI), use of other practices was suboptimal-particularly for CAUTI and VAP. COVID-19 had a profound impact on Israeli hospitals, with all hospitals reporting opening of new units to care for COVID patients and most reporting moderate to extreme financial hardship. All hospitals reported highly successful plans to vaccinate all staff and felt confident that the vaccine is safe and effective.ConclusionWe provide a status report of the IPC characteristics and practices Israeli hospitals are currently using to prevent HAIs during the COVID-19 era. While many globally accepted IPC practices are widely implemented, opportunities to increase the use of certain IPC practices in Israeli hospitals exist.
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.
Project description:BackgroundMeaningful research creates evidence for Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice.AimTo establish Infection Prevention Society (IPS) members' research priorities to support future research projects.MethodsA mixed methods convergent parallel design incorporating a cross-sectional survey of IPS members (2022-2023), and focus group findings from the IPS Consultative Committee, (October 2022). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were transcribed verbatim, entered into NVivo 12, and analysed using a thematic analysis approach.Findings/results132 IPS members responded to the survey, including 120 (90.9%) nurses. The three most prevalent priorities were: Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (n = 84, 16.1%); IPC Training and Education (n = 77, 14.8%); and IPC Evidence-based Guidelines (n = 76, 14.6%). Analysis of the focus group transcripts identified six emergent themes 'Patient Centred Care', 'Training and Education', 'IPC Role and Identity', 'IPC Leadership', 'IPC is Everyone's Responsibility', and 'Research Activity'. Triangulation of findings demonstrated concordance between quantitative and qualitative findings with Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (QIPS) and Training and Education identified as priority research areas.DiscussionThis study highlights the necessity of developing support systems and incorporating research priorities in QIPS, as well as Training and Education. The findings of this study align with the recommended core competencies and components for effective infection prevention and control programs, making them relevant to QIPS initiatives. The outcomes of the study will serve as a valuable resource to guide the IPS Research and Development Committee in delivering practical support to IPS members.
Project description:BackgroundStrengthening infection prevention and control (IPC) is essential to combat healthcare-associated infections, antimicrobial resistance, and to prevent and respond to outbreaks.AimTo assess national IPC programmes worldwide according to the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC core components.MethodsBetween June 1st, 2017 and November 30th, 2018, a multi-country, cross-sectional study was conducted, based on semi-structured interviews with national IPC focal points of countries that pledged to the WHO 'Clean Care is Safer Care' challenge. Results and differences between regions and national income levels were summarized using descriptive statistics.FindingsEighty-eight of 103 (85.4%) eligible countries participated; 22.7% were low-income, 19.3% lower-middle-income, 23.9% upper-middle-income, and 34.1% high-income economies. A national IPC programme existed in 62.5%, but only 26.1% had a dedicated budget. National guidelines were available in 67.0%, but only 36.4% and 21.6% of countries had an implementation strategy and evaluated compliance with guidelines, respectively. Undergraduate IPC curriculum and in-service and postgraduate IPC training were reported by 35.2%, 54.5%, and 42% of countries, respectively. Healthcare-associated infection surveillance was reported by 46.6% of countries, with significant differences ranging from 83.3% (high-income) to zero (low-income) (P < 0.001); monitoring and feedback of IPC indicators was reported by 65.9%. Only 12.5% of countries had all core components in place.ConclusionMost countries have IPC programme and guidelines, but many less have invested adequate resources and translated them in implementation and monitoring, particularly in low-income countries. Leadership support at the national and global level is needed to achieve implementation of the core components in all countries.
Project description:BackgroundThe National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) is a large population-based multicenter case-control study of major birth defects in the United States.MethodsData collection took place from 1998 through 2013 on pregnancies ending between October 1997 and December 2011. Cases could be live born, stillborn, or induced terminations, and were identified from birth defects surveillance programs in Arkansas, California, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Controls were live born infants without major birth defects identified from the same geographical regions and time periods as cases by means of either vital records or birth hospitals. Computer-assisted telephone interviews were completed with women between 6 weeks and 24 months after the estimated date of delivery. After completion of interviews, families received buccal cell collection kits for the mother, father, and infant (if living).ResultsThere were 47,832 eligible cases and 18,272 eligible controls. Among these, 32,187 (67%) and 11,814 (65%), respectively, provided interview information about their pregnancies. Buccal cell collection kits with a cytobrush for at least one family member were returned by 19,065 case and 6,211 control families (65% and 59% of those who were sent a kit). More than 500 projects have been proposed by the collaborators and over 200 manuscripts published using data from the NBDPS through December 2014.ConclusionThe NBDPS has made substantial contributions to the field of birth defects epidemiology through its rigorous design, including case classification, detailed questionnaire and specimen collection, large study population, and collaborative activities across Centers.
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: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.