"Seconds save lives - clean your hands": the 5 May 2021 World Health Organization SAVE LIVES: Clean Your Hands campaign.

To highlight the urgent need to save lives by implementing best practices in health care delivery, the slogan for 5 May 2021, world hand hygiene day, is "Seconds save lives - clean your hands". The WHO campaign calls to action key stakeholders: health care workers, IPC practitioners, patients and families, facility managers, policy-makers, vaccinators, and the general public who can play critical roles in achieving optimal hand hygiene at the point of care, helping to strengthen society involvement.

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

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 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. 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.

Incidence and mortality of hospital- and ICU-treated sepsis: results from an updated and expanded systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the global burden of sepsis in hospitalized adults by updating and expanding a systematic review and meta-analysis and to compare findings with recent Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) sepsis estimates. METHODS: Thirteen electronic databases were searched for studies on population-level sepsis incidence defined according to clinical criteria (Sepsis-1, -2: severe sepsis criteria, or sepsis-3: sepsis criteria) or relevant ICD-codes. The search of the original systematic review was updated for studies published 05/2015-02/2019 and complemented by a search targeting low- or middle-income-country (LMIC) studies published 01/1979-02/2019. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis with incidence of hospital- and ICU-treated sepsis and proportion of deaths among these sepsis cases as outcomes. RESULTS: Of 4746 results, 28 met the inclusion criteria. 21 studies contributed data for the meta-analysis and were pooled with 30 studies from the original meta-analysis. Pooled incidence was 189 [95% CI 133, 267] hospital-treated sepsis cases per 100,000 person-years. An estimated 26.7% [22.9, 30.7] of sepsis patients died. Estimated incidence of ICU-treated sepsis was 58 [42, 81] per 100,000 person-years, of which 41.9% [95% CI 36.2, 47.7] died prior to hospital discharge. There was a considerably higher incidence of hospital-treated sepsis observed after 2008 (+ 46% compared to the overall time frame). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to results from the IHME study, we found an approximately 50% lower incidence of hospital-treated sepsis. The majority of studies included were based on administrative data, thus limiting our ability to assess temporal trends and regional differences. The incidence of sepsis remains unknown for the vast majority of LMICs, highlighting the urgent need for improved epidemiological sepsis surveillance.

Testing of the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework at acute healthcare facility level.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring and evaluation are an essential part of infection prevention and control (IPC) implementation. The authors developed an IPC assessment framework (IPCAF) to support implementation of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on core components of IPC programmes in acute healthcare facilities. AIM: To evaluate the usability and reliability of the IPCAF tool for global use. METHODS: The IPCAF is a questionnaire with a scoring system to measure the level of IPC implementation according to the eight WHO core components. The tool was pre-tested qualitatively, revised and translated selectively. A convenience sample of hospitals was invited to participate in the final testing. At least two IPC professionals from each hospital independently completed the IPCAF and a usability questionnaire online. The tool's internal consistency and interobserver reliability or intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were assessed, and usability questions were summarized descriptively. FINDINGS: In total, 46 countries, 181 hospitals and 324 individuals participated; 52 (16%) and 55 (17%) individual respondents came from low- and lower-middle income countries, respectively. Fifty-two percent of respondents took less than 1 h to complete the IPCAF. Overall, there was adequate internal consistency and a high ICC (0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.89-0.94). Ten individual questions had poor reliability (ICC <0.4); these were considered for revision according to usability feedback and expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO IPCAF was tested using a robust global study and revised as necessary. It is now an effective tool for IPC improvement in healthcare facilities.

Hand hygiene in hospitals: anatomy of a revolution.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) affect hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide. Performing hand hygiene is widely accepted as a key strategy of infection prevention and control (IPC) to prevent HAIs, as healthcare workers' contaminated hands are the vehicle most often implicated in the cross-transmission of pathogens in health care. Over the last 20 years, a paradigm shift has occurred in hand hygiene: the change from handwashing with soap and water to using alcohol-based hand rubs. In order to put this revolution into context and understand how such a change was able to be implemented across so many different cultures and geographic regions, it is useful to understand how the idea of hygiene in general, and hand hygiene specifically, developed. This paper aims to examine how ideas about hygiene and hand hygiene evolved from ancient to modern times, from a ubiquitous but local set of ideas to a global phenomenon. It reviews historical landmarks from the first known documented recipe for soap by the Babylon civilization to the discovery of chlorine, and significant contributions by pioneers such as Antoine Germain Labarraque, Alexander Gordon, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Ignaz Philip Semmelweis, Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister. It recalls that handwashing with soap and water appeared in guidelines to prevent HAIs in the 1980s; describes why alcohol-based hand rub replaced this as the central tool for action within a multi-modal improvement strategy; and looks at how the World Health Organization and other committed stakeholders, governments and dedicated IPC staff are championing hand hygiene globally.

Global hand hygiene improvement progress: two surveys using the WHO Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework.

The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted two global surveys in 2011 and 2015 using the Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework. In 2011, 2119 health facilities from 69 countries participated, and in 2015, 807 health facilities from 91 countries participated. In total, 86 facilities submitted results for both surveys; their overall score increased significantly (P<0.001) from 335.1 [standard deviation (SD) 7.5] to 374.4 (SD 90.5). In terms of WHO regions, the scores for the Eastern Mediterranean, Europe and Western Pacific regions all improved significantly (P<0.01). This represents a snapshot of the current position of global hand hygiene improvement efforts, outlining facility progress and highlighting the value of such an assessment tool.

Correction to: Antimicrobial-coated sutures to decrease surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In the original version of this article, reference citations found in Tables 2, 3, and 4 contain errors in linking. The correct tables are reproduced below.

The global hand-sanitizing relay: promoting hand hygiene through innovation.

On the 10th anniversary of the 'Clean Care is Safer Care' programme, the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre on Patient Safety launched the 'Global Hand Sanitizing Relay 2015' (HSRelay). This hospital-wide activity promotes the WHO handrubbing technique to improve hand hygiene (HH) compliance. More than 15,000 healthcare workers (HCWs) from 133 hospitals in 43 countries participated. Between May and September 2015, 14 hospitals submitted pre- and post-event HH compliance data; 57% (8/14) reported a significant increase while others showed minimal or no improvement (average absolute change 9.4%). The HSRelay demonstrated that HCWs were interested in novel strategies to improve HH compliance.

Antimicrobial-coated sutures to decrease surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To investigate the effectiveness of antimicrobial-coated sutures compared with non-coated sutures in reducing surgical site infection (SSI) and develop recommendations for World Health Organization (WHO) SSI prevention guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and WHO Global Health from 1990-16/02/2015 with language restricted to English, Spanish, and French. Meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model. Meta-regression analysis assessed whether the effect of antimicrobial coating changed according to the type of suture and surgery. Subgroup analyses were based on types of sutures. Quality of the retrieved evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five observational studies (OBSs) met the inclusion criteria. Antimicrobial sutures significantly reduced SSI risk (for RCTs: OR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.59-0.88, p = 0.001, I2 = 14 %; for OBSs: OR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.40-0.83, p = 0.003, I2 = 22 %). Only Vicryl Plus vs Vicryl revealed consistent results in favor of antimicrobial sutures (for seven RCTs: OR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.44-0.88, p = 0.007, I2 = 3 %; for four OBSs: OR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.37-0.92, p = 0.02, I2 = 41 %). The effect of antimicrobial coating was similar between different suture, wound, and procedure types. Quality of RCT evidence was moderate, and OBS evidence was very low quality. Triclosan-coated sutures may reduce SSI risk. However, the available evidence is of moderate/low quality, and many studies had conflicts of interest.

Meta-analysis of lower perioperative blood glucose target levels for reduction of surgical-site infection.

BACKGROUND: There is a clear association between hyperglycaemia and surgical-site infection (SSI). Intensive glucose control may involve a risk of hypoglycaemia, which in turn results in potentially severe complications. A systematic review was undertaken of studies comparing intensive versus conventional glucose control protocols in relation to reduction of SSI and other outcomes, including hypoglycaemia, mortality and stroke. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and WHO databases from 1 January 1990 to 1 August 2015 were searched. Inclusion criteria were RCTs comparing intensive with conventional glucose control protocols, and reporting on the incidence of SSI. Meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model, and meta-regression was subsequently undertaken. Targeted blood glucose levels, achieved blood glucose levels, and important adverse events were summarized. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs were included. The summary estimate showed a significant benefit for an intensive compared with a conventional glucose control protocol in reducing SSI (odds ratio (OR) 0·43, 95 per cent c.i. 0·29 to 0·64; P < 0·001). A significantly higher risk of hypoglycaemic events was found for the intensive group compared with the conventional group (OR 5·55, 2·58 to 11·96), with no increased risk of death (OR 0·74, 0·45 to 1·23) or stroke (OR 1·37, 0·26 to 7·20). These results were consistent both in patients with and those without diabetes, and in studies with moderately strict and very strict glucose control. CONCLUSION: Stricter and lower blood glucose target levels of less than 150 mg/dl (8·3 mmol/l), using an intensive protocol in the perioperative period, reduce SSI with an inherent risk of hypoglycaemic events but without a significant increase in serious adverse events.

Provision and consumption of alcohol-based hand rubs in European hospitals.

Hand hygiene is considered to be the most effective way of preventing microbial transmission and healthcare-associated infections. The use of alcohol-based hand rubs (AHRs) is the reference standard for effective hand hygiene. AHR consumption is a valuable surrogate parameter for hand hygiene performance, and it can be easily tracked in the healthcare setting. AHR availability at the point of care ensures access to optimal agents, and makes hand hygiene easier by overcoming barriers such as lack of AHRs or inconvenient dispenser locations. Data on AHR consumption and availability at the point of care in European hospitals were obtained as part of the Prevention of Hospital Infections by Intervention and Training (PROHIBIT) study, a framework 7 project funded by the European Commission. Data on AHR consumption were provided by 232 hospitals, and showed median usage of 21 mL (interquartile range (IQR) 9-37 mL) per patient-day (PD) at the hospital level, 66 mL/PD (IQR 33-103 mL/PD) at the intensive-care unit (ICU) level, and 13 mL/PD (IQR 6-25 mL/PD) at the non-ICU level. Consumption varied by country and hospital type. Most ICUs (86%) had AHRs available at 76-100% of points of care, but only approximately two-thirds (65%) of non-ICUs did. The availability of wall-mounted and bed-mounted AHR dispensers was significantly associated with AHR consumption in both ICUs and non-ICUs. The data show that further improvement in hand hygiene behaviour is needed in Europe. To what extent factors at the national, hospital and ward levels influence AHR consumption must be explored further.

Hand hygiene and healthcare system change within multi-modal promotion: a narrative review.

Many factors may influence the level of compliance with hand hygiene recommendations by healthcare workers. Lack of products and facilities as well as their inappropriate and non-ergonomic location represent important barriers. Targeted actions aimed at making hand hygiene practices feasible during healthcare delivery by ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is in place, defined as 'system change', are essential to improve hand hygiene in healthcare. In particular, access to alcohol-based hand rubs (AHRs) enables appropriate and timely hand hygiene performance at the point of care. The feasibility and impact of system change within multi-modal strategies have been demonstrated both at institutional level and on a large scale. The introduction of AHRs overcomes some important barriers to best hand hygiene practices and is associated with higher compliance, especially when integrated within multi-modal strategies. Several studies demonstrated the association between AHR consumption and reduction in healthcare-associated infection, in particular, meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Recent reports demonstrate the feasibility and success of system change implementation on a large scale. The World Health Organization and other investigators have reported the challenges and encouraging results of implementing hand hygiene improvement strategies, including AHR introduction, in settings with limited resources. This review summarizes the available evidence demonstrating the need for system change and its importance within multi-modal hand hygiene improvement strategies. This topic is also discussed in a global perspective and highlights some controversial issues.

Testing the WHO Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework for usability and reliability.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework (HHSAF) was conceived as a structured self-assessment tool to provide a situation analysis of hand hygiene resources, promotion and practices within healthcare facilities. AIM: To perform usability pretesting and reliability testing of the HHSAF. METHODS: The HHSAF draft was developed in consultation with experts to reflect key elements of the WHO Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy. Forty-two facilities were invited to pretest the draft HHSAF and complete a feedback survey. For reliability testing, two users in each facility completed the HHSAF independently. The reliability of each indicator, component subtotal and the overall score were estimated using the variance components model. After each phase, the tool was re-examined and modified as appropriate. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven indicators were selected during drafting. Twenty-six facilities in 19 countries completed pretesting (62% response rate), with total scores ranging from 35 to 480 (mean 262). The HHSAF took less than 2 h to complete for 21 facilities. Most agreed that the HHSAF was 'easy to use' (23/26) and 'useful for establishing facility status with regard to hand hygiene promotion' (24/26). Complete reliability responses were received from 41 facilities in 16 countries. Reliability for the total score for the HHSAF and the subtotal of each of the five components ranged from 0.54 to 0.86. Seven indicators had poor reliability; these were examined for potential flaws and modified accordingly. CONCLUSION: This process confirmed the usability and reliability of this tool for the promotion of hand hygiene in health care.