Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Infektsiya I Immunitet ; 12(6):1149-1155, 2022.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-2310274

ABSTRACT

Aim of the study was to assess the current state of implementating key aspects of infection prevention and control (IPC) in Armenian hospitals, defined by the main WHO components, using the survey tool IPCAF (Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework). Materials and methods. 113 hospitals were involved in the study. All participants filled out the IPCAF questionnaire, consisting of 8 sections (each rated up to 100 points) devoted to various IPC aspects. Depending on the total final score, IPC programs were divided into the following categories: advanced (601-800 points), intermediate (401-600 points), basic (201-400 points) and inadequate (0-200 points). The study conducted a descriptive analysis of the overall IPCAF score as well as score evaluation of the relevant core components and some selected questions of particular interest. Results. The 2021 total average score for all IPCAF components for all hospitals in Armenia is 578.0 +/- 7.9 points, which is currently regarded as an "intermediate" level. At the same time, 47 (41.6%) hospitals were assigned to the advanced category, 63 (55.7%) - to the average category and 3 (2.7%) - to the basic category. Analysis of the main IPC components (CC, Core component) revealed that the maximum average scores were obtained for the components CC2 (IPC Guidelines) - 80.8 points, CC8 (Creating a safe environment in medical premises, as well as materials and equipment for IPC) - 75.5 points and CC7 (Workload, staffing and number of beds) - 75.2 points. The lowest average scores were obtained for the key components: CC4 (Surveillance for healthcare-associated infections) with 54.7 points and CC3 (IPC education and training) with 59.5 points. Conclusion. Legislative and practical changes implemented in the real world during the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) pandemic have significantly contributed to improved scores for many key components of IPC programs. The study found that the IPCAF is a useful tool for assessing IPC standards and identifying gaps, regardless of a country economic development level. In our opinion, the re-use of IPCAF in all medical institutions should be encouraged, which is important for monitoring changes and trends in IPC, as well as proposing individual strategies in the development and improvement of IPC.

2.
Infect Drug Resist ; 16: 1997-2006, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2304494

ABSTRACT

Background: During outbreaks of infectious diseases like COVID-19, the healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) pose a burden on public health system. There are very limited data about infection prevention and control (IPC) implementation in the healthcare facilities of Pakistan. The aim of the study was to conduct assessment with the IPC Assessment Framework (IPCAF) tool in healthcare facilities of the least developed areas. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 12 tertiary level healthcare facilities (HCF) located in the least developed provinces of Pakistan. The facilities were selected through multistage cluster random methods. A well-structured questionnaire, the "IPCAF tool", was used for data collection. The IPCAF comprises eight sections with a 100 score of each section, thus with a maximum score of 800. The scores from 0 to 800 of the HCFs were divided into four gradual ratings through IPCAF, ie from inadequate to advanced. Results: The median score of all facilities was 405, with a range from inadequate to advanced. One facility (8.3%) fell into the "inadequate" category with a score of 172.5; 5 (41.6%) facilities achieved "basic" category, another 5 (41.6%) being "intermediate", and only one (8.3%) hospital achieved "advanced" status. Region-wise median score of facilities of GB was 307.5, facilities in AJK scored 342.5, and a score of 520 was found for health facilities in KPK. The components of Education and Training, HCAIs Surveillance, and Multimodal Strategies achieved the lowest scores. Conclusion: Most of the facilities have developed an IPC program with key focal persons and IPC committees, but did not have relevant education and training. IPC core capacities are being implemented. Equitable attention is required on all eight components of IPC in all facilities.

3.
Russian Journal of Infection and Immunity ; 12(6):1149-1155, 2022.
Article in Russian | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2275427

ABSTRACT

Aim of the study was to assess the current state of implementating key aspects of infection prevention and control (IPC) in Armenian hospitals, defined by the main WHO components, using the survey tool IPCAF (Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework). Materials and methods. 113 hospitals were involved in the study. All participants filled out the IPCAF questionnaire, consisting of 8 sections (each rated up to 100 points) devoted to various IPC aspects. Depending on the total final score, IPC programs were divided into the following categories: advanced (601-800 points), intermediate (401-600 points), basic (201-400 points) and inadequate (0-200 points). The study conducted a descriptive analysis of the overall IPCAF score as well as score evaluation of the relevant core components and some selected questions of particular interest. Results. The 2021 total average score for all IPCAF components for all hospitals in Armenia is 578.0+/-7.9 points, which is currently regarded as an "intermediate" level. At the same time, 47 (41.6%) hospitals were assigned to the advanced category, 63 (55.7%) - to the average category and 3 (2.7%) - to the basic category. Analysis of the main IPC components (CC, Core component) revealed that the maximum average scores were obtained for the components CC2 (IPC Guidelines) - 80.8 points, CC8 (Creating a safe environment in medical premises, as well as materials and equipment for IPC) - 75.5 points and CC7 (Workload, staffing and number of beds) - 75.2 points. The lowest average scores were obtained for the key components: CC4 (Surveillance for healthcare-associated infections) with 54.7 points and CC3 (IPC education and training) with 59.5 points. Conclusion. Legislative and practical changes implemented in the real world during the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) pandemic have significantly contributed to improved scores for many key components of IPC programs. The study found that the IPCAF is a useful tool for assessing IPC standards and identifying gaps, regardless of a country economic development level. In our opinion, the re-use of IPCAF in all medical institutions should be encouraged, which is important for monitoring changes and trends in IPC, as well as proposing individual strategies in the development and improvement of IPC.Copyright © 2022 Saint Petersburg Pasteur Institute. All rights reserved.

4.
Russian Journal of Infection and Immunity ; 12(6):1149-1155, 2022.
Article in Russian | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2275426

ABSTRACT

Aim of the study was to assess the current state of implementating key aspects of infection prevention and control (IPC) in Armenian hospitals, defined by the main WHO components, using the survey tool IPCAF (Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework). Materials and methods. 113 hospitals were involved in the study. All participants filled out the IPCAF questionnaire, consisting of 8 sections (each rated up to 100 points) devoted to various IPC aspects. Depending on the total final score, IPC programs were divided into the following categories: advanced (601-800 points), intermediate (401-600 points), basic (201-400 points) and inadequate (0-200 points). The study conducted a descriptive analysis of the overall IPCAF score as well as score evaluation of the relevant core components and some selected questions of particular interest. Results. The 2021 total average score for all IPCAF components for all hospitals in Armenia is 578.0+/-7.9 points, which is currently regarded as an "intermediate" level. At the same time, 47 (41.6%) hospitals were assigned to the advanced category, 63 (55.7%) - to the average category and 3 (2.7%) - to the basic category. Analysis of the main IPC components (CC, Core component) revealed that the maximum average scores were obtained for the components CC2 (IPC Guidelines) - 80.8 points, CC8 (Creating a safe environment in medical premises, as well as materials and equipment for IPC) - 75.5 points and CC7 (Workload, staffing and number of beds) - 75.2 points. The lowest average scores were obtained for the key components: CC4 (Surveillance for healthcare-associated infections) with 54.7 points and CC3 (IPC education and training) with 59.5 points. Conclusion. Legislative and practical changes implemented in the real world during the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) pandemic have significantly contributed to improved scores for many key components of IPC programs. The study found that the IPCAF is a useful tool for assessing IPC standards and identifying gaps, regardless of a country economic development level. In our opinion, the re-use of IPCAF in all medical institutions should be encouraged, which is important for monitoring changes and trends in IPC, as well as proposing individual strategies in the development and improvement of IPC.Copyright © 2022 Saint Petersburg Pasteur Institute. All rights reserved.

5.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 11(1): 125, 2022 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2053971

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings is imperative for the safety of patients as well as healthcare providers. To measure current IPC activities, resources, and gaps at the facility level, WHO has developed the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF). This study aimed to assess the existing IPC level of selected tertiary care hospitals in Bangladesh during the COVID-19 pandemic using IPCAF to explore their strengths and deficits. METHODS: Between September and December 2020, we assessed 11 tertiary-care hospitals across Bangladesh. We collected the information from IPC focal person and/or hospital administrator from each hospital using the IPCAF assessment tool.. The score was calculated based on eight core components and was used to categorize the hospitals into four distinct IPC levels- Inadequate, Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced. Key performance metrics were summarized within and between hospitals. RESULTS: The overall median IPCAF score was 355.0 (IQR: 252.5-397.5) out of 800. The majority (73%) of hospitals scored as 'Basic' IPC level, while only 18% of hospitals were categorized as 'Intermediate'. Most hospitals had IPC guidelines as well as environments, materials and equipments. Although 64% of hospitals had IPC orientation and training program for new employees, only 30% of hospitals had regular IPC training program for the staff. None of the hospitals had an IPC surveillance system with standard surveillance case definitions to track HAIs. Around 90% of hospitals did not have an active IPC monitoring and audit system. Half of the hospitals had inadequate staffing considering the workload. Bed occupancy of one patient per bed in all units was found in 55% of hospitals. About 73% of hospitals had functional hand hygiene stations, but sufficient toilets were available in only 37% of hospitals. CONCLUSION: The majority of sampled tertiary care hospitals demonstrate inadequate IPC level to ensure the safety of healthcare workers, patients, and visitors. Quality improvement programs and feedback mechanisms should be implemented to strengthen all IPC core components, particularly IPC surveillance, monitoring, education, and training, to improve healthcare safety and resilience.


Subject(s)
Cross Infection , Infection Control , Bangladesh/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Pandemics , Tertiary Care Centers , World Health Organization
6.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(9)2022 05 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1953337

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Good Infection prevention and control (IPC) is vital for tackling antimicrobial resistance and limiting health care-associated infections. We compared IPC performance before (2019) and during the COVID-19 (2021) era at the national IPC unit and all regional (4) and district hospitals (8) in Sierra Leone. METHODS: Cross-sectional assessments using standardized World Health Organizations IPC checklists. IPC performance scores were graded as inadequate = 0-25%, basic = 25.1-50%, intermediate = 50.1-75%, and advanced = 75.1-100%. RESULTS: Overall performance improved from 'basic' to 'intermediate' at the national IPC unit (41% in 2019 to 58% in 2021) and at regional hospitals (37% in 2019 to 54% in 2021) but remained 'basic' at district hospitals (37% in 2019 to 50% in 2021). Priority gaps at the national IPC unit included lack of: a dedicated IPC budget, monitoring the effectiveness of IPC trainings and health care-associated infection surveillance. Gaps at hospitals included no assessment of hospital staffing needs, inadequate infrastructure for IPC and lack of a well-defined monitoring plan with clear goals, targets and activities. CONCLUSION: Although there is encouraging progress in IPC performance, it is slower than desired in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is urgent need to mobilize political will, leadership and resources and make a quantum leap forward.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Infection Control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Sierra Leone/epidemiology
7.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ; 19(10):5936, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1871155

ABSTRACT

Implementing and monitoring infection prevention and control (IPC) measures at immigration points of entry (PoEs) is key to preventing infections, reducing excessive use of antimicrobials, and tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Sierra Leone has been implementing IPC measures at four PoEs (Queen Elizabeth II Quay port, Lungi International Airport, and the Jendema and Gbalamuya ground crossings) since the last Ebola outbreak in 2014–2015. We adapted the World Health Organization IPC Assessment Framework tool to assess these measures and identify any gaps in their components at each PoE through a cross-sectional study in May 2021. IPC measures were Inadequate (0–25%) at Queen Elizabeth II Quay port (21%;11/53) and Jendema (25%;13/53) and Basic (26–50%) at Lungi International Airport (40%;21/53) and Gbalamuya (49%;26/53). IPC components with the highest scores were: having a referral system (85%;17/20), cleaning and sanitation (63%;15/24), and having a screening station (59%;19/32). The lowest scores (0% each) were reported for the availability of IPC guidelines and monitoring of IPC practices. This was the first study in Sierra Leone highlighting significant gaps in the implementation of IPC measures at PoEs. We call on the AMR multisectoral coordinating committee to enhance IPC measures at all PoEs.

8.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ; 19(9):5642, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1837138

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Good Infection prevention and control (IPC) is vital for tackling antimicrobial resistance and limiting health care-associated infections. We compared IPC performance before (2019) and during the COVID-19 (2021) era at the national IPC unit and all regional (4) and district hospitals (8) in Sierra Leone. Methods: Cross-sectional assessments using standardized World Health Organizations IPC checklists. IPC performance scores were graded as inadequate = 0–25%, basic = 25.1–50%, intermediate = 50.1–75%, and advanced = 75.1–100%. Results: Overall performance improved from ‘basic’ to ‘intermediate’ at the national IPC unit (41% in 2019 to 58% in 2021) and at regional hospitals (37% in 2019 to 54% in 2021) but remained ‘basic’ at district hospitals (37% in 2019 to 50% in 2021). Priority gaps at the national IPC unit included lack of: a dedicated IPC budget, monitoring the effectiveness of IPC trainings and health care-associated infection surveillance. Gaps at hospitals included no assessment of hospital staffing needs, inadequate infrastructure for IPC and lack of a well-defined monitoring plan with clear goals, targets and activities. Conclusion: Although there is encouraging progress in IPC performance, it is slower than desired in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is urgent need to mobilize political will, leadership and resources and make a quantum leap forward.

9.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(9)2022 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1809916

ABSTRACT

Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures are critical to the reduction in healthcare-associated infections, especially during pandemics, such as that of COVID-19. We conducted a hospital-based cross-sectional study in August 2021 at Connaught Hospital, Princess Christian Maternity Hospital and Ola During Children's Hospital located in Freetown, Sierra Leone. We used the World Health Organization's Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework Tool to assess the level of IPC compliance at these healthcare facilities. The overall IPC compliance score at Connaught Hospital was 323.5 of 800 points, 313.5 of 800 at Ola During Children's Hospital, 281 of 800 at Princess Christian Maternity Hospital, implying a 'Basic' IPC compliance grade. These facilities had an IPC program, IPC committees and dedicated IPC focal persons. However, there were several challenges, including access to safe and clean water and insufficient quantities of face masks, examination gloves and aprons. Furthermore, there was no dedicated budget or no healthcare-associated infection (HAI) surveillance, and monitoring/audit of IPC practices were weak. These findings are of concern during the COVID-19 era, and there is an urgent need for both financial and technical support to address the gaps and challenges identified.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Child , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infection Control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pregnancy , Sierra Leone/epidemiology , Tertiary Healthcare
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL