Dataset Information

Implementation of the infection prevention and control core components at the national level: a global situational analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Strengthening infection prevention and control (IPC) is essential to combat healthcare-associated infections, antimicrobial resistance, and to prevent and respond to outbreaks.

Aim

To assess national IPC programmes worldwide according to the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC core components.

Methods

Between June 1^st, 2017 and November 30^th, 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.

Findings

Eighty-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.

Conclusion

Most 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.

SUBMITTER: Tartari E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7884929 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation of the infection prevention and control core components at the national level: a global situational analysis.

Tartari E E Tomczyk S S Pires D D Zayed B B Coutinho Rehse A P AP Kariyo P P Stempliuk V V Zingg W W Pittet D D Allegranzi B B

The Journal of hospital infection 20201130

<h4>Background</h4>Strengthening infection prevention and control (IPC) is essential to combat healthcare-associated infections, antimicrobial resistance, and to prevent and respond to outbreaks.<h4>Aim</h4>To assess national IPC programmes worldwide according to the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC core components.<h4>Methods</h4>Between June 1<sup>st</sup>, 2017 and November 30<sup>th</sup>, 2018, a multi-country, cross-sectional study was conducted, based on semi-structured interviews with ...[more]

PMID: 33271215

Similar Datasets

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 (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 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.

Dataset Information

Implementation of the infection prevention and control core components at the national level: a global situational analysis.

Background

Aim

Methods

Findings

Conclusion

Publications

Implementation of the infection prevention and control core components at the national level: a global situational analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets