ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Strengthening infection prevention and control programs in nonacute care settings is a national priority. Efforts require thorough and ongoing appraisal of organizational structures, human resources including personnel training and competencies, system challenges and adaptive strategies implemented. Assessment of those in infection preventionist (IP) roles outside of the acute care setting is necessary to capture ongoing changes and challenges in the IP profession. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized data derived from the 2020 APIC MegaSurvey and applied descriptive and bivariate analyses to describe the state of infection prevention and control programs and personnel across nonacute clinical settings in the United States. RESULTS: Of 1,991 respondents, 57% of frontline IPs or administration/director IPs (1,051) indicated working in 1 or more nonacute care clinical settings. Of these, 33% (343) worked exclusively in only 1 type of nonacute care setting. Consistent with findings from the 2015 APIC MegaSurvey, IPs employed in nonacute care settings are a homogenous group with 88% of respondents indicating they are white, non-Hispanic (88%), female (94%), with nursing as their primary discipline (95%). A notable change in the proportion of time spent on health care-associated infection (HAI) activities in general was found, with a 31% decrease in reported time spent compared to respondents from the 2015 survey. Nearly half (47%) of respondents reported an annual salary of $50,000-$80,000; only 35% of respondents reported they were satisfied with their overall compensation. More than half (57%) of respondents reported having 5 or less years' experience in IPC and the majority, 82% reported they expected to be working in the IP profession in the next 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of IPs in nonacute care settings also worked in acute care. Of those who exclusively worked in nonacute care settings, they were predominately female, white, and had an educational background in nursing. A decrease in time spent on HAI activities was noted compared to respondents in 2015. Although the 2020 APIC MegaSurvey captured information previously not assessed in 2015, further studies are necessary to more robustly characterize the IP profession in nonacute care settings. Enhancements to current resources and services provided by APIC may serve to fill gaps in nonacute care settings related to gaining experience in research, general expertise, advocacy, and diversity.
ABSTRACT
Globalization has altered the way we live and earn a livelihood. Consequently, trade and travel have been recognized as significant determinants of the spread of disease. Additionally, the rise in urbanization and the closer integration of the world economy have facilitated global interconnectedness. Therefore, globalization has emerged as an essential mechanism of disease transmission. This paper aims to examine the potential impact of COVID-19 on globalization and global health in terms of mobility, trade, travel, and countries most impacted. The effect of globalization were operationalized in terms of mobility, economy, and healthcare systems. The mobility of individuals and its magnitude was assessed using airline and seaport trade data and travel information. The economic impact was measured based on the workforce, event cancellations, food and agriculture, academic institutions, and supply chain. The healthcare capacity was assessed by considering healthcare system indicators and preparedness of countries. Utilizing a technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), we calculated a pandemic vulnerability index (PVI) by creating a quantitative measure of the potential global health. The pandemic has placed an unprecedented burden on the world economy, healthcare, and globalization through travel, events cancellation, employment workforce, food chain, academia, and healthcare capacity. Based on PVI results, certain countries were more vulnerable than others. In Africa, more vulnerable countries included South Africa and Egypt; in Europe, they were Russia, Germany, and Italy; in Asia and Oceania, they were India, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey; and for the Americas, they were Brazil, USA, Chile, Mexico, and Peru. The impact on mobility, economy, and healthcare systems has only started to manifest. The findings of this study may help in the planning and implementation of strategies at the country level to help ease this emerging burden.