Dataset Information

Evaluating infection prevention and control programs in Austrian acute care hospitals using the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Infection 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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

Altogether, 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.

Conclusions

Implementation 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.

SUBMITTER: Aghdassi SJS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7309981 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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: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: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:BackgroundElectronic consultation is an emerging mode of specialty care delivery that allows primary care providers and their patients to obtain specialist expertise without an in-person visit. While studies of individual programs have demonstrated benefits related to timely access to specialty care, electronic consultation programs have not achieved widespread use in the United States. The lack of common evaluation metrics across health systems and concerns related to the generalizability of existing evaluation efforts may be hampering further growth. We sought to identify gaps in knowledge related to the implementation of electronic consultation programs and develop a set of shared evaluation measures to promote further diffusion.MethodsUsing a case study approach, we apply the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) and the Quadruple Aim frameworks of evaluation to examine electronic consultation implementation across diverse delivery systems. Data are from 4 early adopter healthcare delivery systems (San Francisco Health Network, Mayo Clinic, Veterans Administration, Champlain Local Health Integration Network) that represent varied organizational structures, care for different patient populations, and have well-established multi-specialty electronic consultation programs. Data sources include published and unpublished quantitative data from each electronic consultation database and qualitative data from systems' end-users.ResultsOrganizational drivers of electronic consultation implementation were similar across the systems (challenges with timely and/or efficient access to specialty care), though unique system-level facilitators and barriers influenced reach, adoption and design. Effectiveness of implementation was consistent, with improved patient access to timely, perceived high-quality specialty expertise with few negative consequences, garnering high satisfaction among end-users. Data about patient-specific clinical outcomes are lacking, as are policies that provide guidance on the legal implications of electronic consultation and ideal remuneration strategies.ConclusionA core set of effectiveness and implementation metrics rooted in the Quadruple Aim may promote data-driven improvements and further diffusion of successful electronic consultation programs.

Project description:BackgroundInfection prevention and control (IPC) in hospitals is key to safe patient care. There is currently no data regarding the implementation of IPC in hospitals in Indonesia. The aim of this study was to assess the existing IPC level in a nationwide survey, using the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC assessment framework tool (IPCAF), and to identify strengths, gaps, and challenges.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from July to November 2021. Of all general hospitals in Indonesia, 20% (N = 475) were selected using stratified random sampling based on class (A, B, C and D; class D with a maximum of 50 beds and class A with ≥ 250 beds) and region. The IPCAF was translated into Indonesian and tested in four hospitals. Questions were added regarding challenges in the implementation of IPC. Quantitative IPCAF scores are reported as median (minimum-maximum). IPC levels were calculated according to WHO tools.ResultsIn total, 355 hospitals (74.7%) participated in this study. The overall median IPCAF score was 620.0 (535.0-687.5). The level of IPC was mostly assessed as advanced (56.9% of hospitals), followed by intermediate (35.8%), basic (7.0%) and inadequate (0.3%). In the eastern region of the country, the majority of hospitals scored intermediate level. Of the eight core components, the one with the highest score was IPC guidelines. Almost all hospitals had guidelines on the most important topics, including hand hygiene. Core components with the lowest score were surveillance of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), education and training, and multimodal strategies. Although > 90% of hospitals indicated that surveillance of HAIs was performed, 57.2% reported no availability of adequate microbiology laboratory capacity to support HAIs surveillance. The most frequently reported challenges in the implementation of IPC were communication with the management of the hospitals, followed by the unavailability of antimicrobial susceptibility testing results and insufficient staffing of full-time IPC nurses.ConclusionThe IPC level in the majority of Indonesian hospitals was assessed as advanced, but there was no even distribution over the country. The IPCAF in combination with interviews identified several priority areas for interventions to improve IPC in Indonesian hospitals.