Infection prevention and control in Dutch general practices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and its implications for pandemic preparedness and seasonal respiratory epidemics: a qualitative study on lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a re-evaluation of infection prevention and control (IPC) in general practices, highlighting the need for comprehensive IPC implementation. This study aimed to evaluate healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences and perspectives regarding IPC in general practices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and its implications for post-pandemic IPC implementation. METHODS: This qualitative study involved semi-structured, in-depth interviews during two time periods: (1) prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2019-February 2020), involving 14 general practitioners (GPs) and medical assistants; and (2) during the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2022-February 2023), including 22 GPs and medical assistants. Data analysis included thematic analysis that addressed multiple system levels. RESULTS: Findings indicated a shift towards comprehensive IPC implementation and organisation during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period. Since the Omicron variant, some general practices maintained a broad set of IPC measures, while others released most measures. HCWs' future expectations on post-pandemic IPC implementation varied: some anticipated reduced implementation due to the desire to return to the pre-pandemic standard, while others expected IPC to be structurally scaled up during seasonal respiratory epidemics. Main contextual challenges included patient cooperation, staff shortages (due to infection), shortages of IPC materials/equipment, and frequently changing and ambiguous guidelines. Key lessons learned were enhanced preparedness (e.g., personal protective equipment supply), and a new perspective on care organisation (e.g., digital care). Main recommendations reported by HCWs were to strengthen regional collaboration within primary care, and between primary care, public health, and secondary care. CONCLUSION: HCWs' experiences, perspectives and recommendations provide insights to enhance preparedness for future epidemics and pandemics, and sustain IPC in general practices. For IPC improvement strategies, adopting an integrated system-based approach that encompasses actions across multiple levels and engages multiple stakeholders is recommended.

Perceived barriers and facilitators to infection prevention and control in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Adequate implementation of infection prevention and control (IPC) in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) is crucial to safeguarding this vulnerable population. Studies in this field are scarce. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers to and facilitators of IPC among professionals working in these settings, along with recommendations to improve IPC, to inform the development of targeted interventions. METHODS: We administered an online questionnaire to 319 professionals from 16 Dutch RCFs for people with IDDs (March 2021-March 2022). Perceived multilevel barriers and facilitators (guideline, client, interpersonal, organisational, care sector, and policy level) were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (totally disagree-totally agree). Recommendations were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (not at all helpful-extremely helpful), supplemented by an open-ended question. Barriers, facilitators, and recommendations were analysed by descriptive statistics. Open answers to recommendations were analysed through thematic coding. RESULTS: Barriers to IPC implementation included the client group (e.g., lack of hygiene awareness) (63%), competing values between IPC and the home-like environment (42%), high work pressure (39%), and the overwhelming quantity of IPC guidelines/protocols (33%). Facilitators included perceived social support on IPC between professionals and from supervisors (90% and 80%, respectively), procedural clarity of IPC guidelines/protocols (83%), and the sense of urgency for IPC in the organisation (74%). Main recommendations included the implementation of clear IPC policies and regulations (86%), the development of a practical IPC guideline (84%), and the introduction of structural IPC education and training programmes (for new staff members) (85%). Professionals also emphasised the need for IPC improvement efforts to be tailored to the local care context, and to involve clients and their relatives. CONCLUSIONS: To improve IPC in disability care settings, multifaceted strategies should be adopted. Initial efforts should involve clients (and relatives), develop a practical and context-specific IPC guideline, encourage social support among colleagues through interprofessional coaching, reduce workload, and foster an IPC culture including shared responsibility within the organisation.

Behavioural determinants shaping infection prevention and control behaviour among healthcare workers in Dutch general practices: a qualitative study reflecting on pre-, during and post-COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, awareness of infection prevention and control (IPC) has increased in primary care settings. This study aimed to examine behavioural determinants shaping IPC behaviour pre-, during, and post-pandemic among healthcare workers (HCWs) in general practices, to inform optimised IPC in primary care. METHODS: For this qualitative study, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted during two study periods: (1) pre-COVID-19 pandemic: July 2019-February 2020, with 14 general practitioners (GPs) and medical assistants, and (2) during the COVID-19 pandemic: July 2022-February 2023, with 22 GPs and medical assistants. The design was informed by behaviour change theories. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Main themes were: (1) risk perception and IPC awareness, (2) attitudes towards IPC and professional responsibility, (3) decision-making process and risk considerations for IPC adherence, (4) social norm and social influence in GP practice team, and (5) environmental context and resource availability in GP practice. During the pandemic, risk perception and awareness of the importance of IPC increased compared to the pre-pandemic period. A consistent belief emerged that IPC is part of professional responsibility, while needing to be balanced with other aspects of patient care. Decision-making is dependent on the individual GP and mainly influenced by risk assessments and sustainability considerations. The social context in the practice team can reinforce IPC behaviours. GP practice building and layout, and limited IPC resource and material availability were reported as main barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The theory-informed insights of this study can be used for targeted interventions to optimise IPC behaviour in general practices. Adopting multifaceted strategies to target the various determinants is recommended to sustain IPC, by implementing continuous education using tailored communication, integrating IPC in work routines and organisational workflows, refining existing IPC protocols by incorporating decision-making tools for HCWs, fostering a culture of IPC through knowledge-sharing and teamwork, and addressing GP practice physical environment and IPC resource barriers.

Psychosocial determinants associated with healthcare workers' self-reported compliance with infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers' (HCWs) compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial to reduce the infection transmission risk. However, HCWs' compliance with IPC in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) is known to be suboptimal. Therefore, this study examined sociodemographic and psychosocial determinants associated with IPC non-compliance in this setting, to inform IPC policy and promotion programmes for adequate IPC behaviour. METHODS: An online questionnaire was administered to 285 HCWs from 16 RCFs between March 2021 and March 2022. Determinants associated with IPC non-compliance were assessed using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Being a woman (OR: 3.57; 1.73-7.37), and being a non-medical professional were associated with increased odds of non-compliance (social workers, OR: 2.83; 1.65-4.85; behavioural specialists, OR: 6.09; 1.98-18.72). Perceived inadequate education/training (aOR: 1.62; 1.15-2.27) and perceived time constraints/competing priorities (aOR: 1.43; 1.03-1.98) were also associated with increased odds of non-compliance, independent of sociodemographic variables. In contrast, the belief that the supervisor complies with IPC (descriptive norm supervisor) was associated with decreased odds of non-compliance (aOR: 0.60; 0.41-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: To improve IPC in disability care settings, the implementation of tailored and structural IPC education and training programmes (e.g., on-the-job training) is recommended to increase HCWs' capabilities and bridge the IPC compliance gap between medical and non-medical professionals. In addition, role models, particularly supervisors, are crucial for promoting IPC behaviour. Facilities should create a culture of IPC compliance by norm setting, acting on, and modelling IPC behaviours at all levels of the organisation (management, medical, and non-medical staff).

Facility- and ward-level factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks among residents in long-term care facilities: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Yet, the reasons why certain LTCFs are affected more by outbreaks are poorly understood. This study aimed to identify the facility- and ward-level factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks among LTCF residents. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of multiple Dutch LTCFs (N = 60; with 298 wards providing care for ∼5600 residents) from September 2020 to June 2021. A dataset was constructed linking SARS-CoV-2 cases among LTCF residents to facility- and ward-level factors. Multilevel logistic regression analyses examined the associations between these factors and the likelihood of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak among residents. RESULTS: During periods of the Classic variant, the mechanical recirculation of air was associated with significantly increased odds of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. During periods of the Alpha variant, the factors associated with significantly increased odds included large ward size (≥21 beds), wards providing psychogeriatric care, fewer restrictions on staff movement between wards and facilities, and a greater number of cases among staff (>10 cases). CONCLUSION: Policy and protocols on reducing resident density, staff movement, and mechanical recirculation of air in buildings are recommended to enhance outbreak preparedness in LTCFs. The implementation of low-threshold preventive measures among psychogeriatric residents is important because they appear as a particularly vulnerable group.

Barriers and facilitators to infection prevention and control in Dutch psychiatric institutions: a theory-informed qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The unique characteristics of psychiatric institutions contribute to the onset and spread of infectious agents. Infection prevention and control (IPC) is essential to minimise transmission and manage outbreaks effectively. Despite abundant studies regarding IPC conducted in hospitals, to date only a few studies focused on mental health care settings. However, the general low compliance to IPC in psychiatric institutions is recognised as a serious concern. Therefore, this study aimed to assess perceived barriers and facilitators to IPC among professionals working at psychiatric institutions, and to identify recommendations reported by professionals to improve IPC. METHODS: A descriptive, qualitative study involving 16 semi-structured interviews was conducted (before COVID-19) among professionals from five Dutch psychiatric institutions. The interview guide and data analysis were informed by implementation science theories, and explored guideline, individual, interpersonal, organisational, and broader environment barriers and facilitators to IPC. Data was subjected to thematic analysis, using inductive and deductive approaches. This study followed the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines. RESULTS: Our findings generated six main themes: (1) patients' non-compliance (strongly related to mental illness); (2) professionals' negative cognitions and attitude towards IPC and IPC knowledge deficits; (3) monitoring of IPC performance and mutual professional feedback; (4) social support from professional to patient; (5) organisational support and priority; and (6) financial and material resource limitations (related to financial arrangements regarding mental health services). The main recommendations reported by professionals included: (1) to increase awareness towards IPC among all staff members, by education and training, and the communication of formal agreements as institutional IPC protocols; (2) to make room for and facilitate IPC at the organisational level, by providing adequate IPC equipment and appointing a professional responsible for IPC. CONCLUSIONS: IPC implementation in psychiatric institutions is strongly influenced by factors on the patient, professional and organisational level. Professional interaction and professional-patient interaction appeared to be additional important aspects. Therefore, a multidimensional approach should be adopted to improve IPC. To coordinate this approach, psychiatric institutions should appoint a professional responsible for IPC. Moreover, a balance between mental health care and IPC needs is required to sustain IPC.

Barriers and facilitators to infection prevention and control in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A theory-informed qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Care institutions are recognised to be a high-risk setting for the emergence and spread of infections and antimicrobial-resistant organisms, which stresses the importance of infection prevention and control (IPC). Accurate implementation is crucial for optimal IPC practice. Despite the wide promotion of IPC and research thereof in the hospital and nursing home setting, similar efforts are lacking in disability care settings. Therefore, this study aimed to assess perceived barriers and facilitators to IPC among professionals working at residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), as well as to identify professional-reported recommendations to improve IPC. METHODS: This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews (before COVID-19) with twelve professionals from five Dutch RCFs for people with IDD. An integrated theoretical approach was used to inform data collection and analysis. Thematic analysis using inductive and deductive approaches was conducted. This study followed the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines. RESULTS: Our findings revealed barriers and facilitators at the guideline, client, professional, professional interaction, professional client interaction, client interaction, organisational, community, and societal level. Six main themes covering multiple barriers and facilitators were identified: (1) guidelines' applicability to (work)setting; (2) professionals' cognitions and attitude towards IPC (related to educational background); (3) organisational support and priority; (4) educational system; (5) time availability and staff capacity; and (6) task division and change coaches. The main professional-reported recommendations were the introduction of tailored and practical IPC guidelines, structural IPC education and training among all professionals, and client participation. CONCLUSIONS: To promote IPC, multifaceted and multilevel strategies should be implemented, with a preliminary need for improvements on the guideline, professional, and organisational level. Given the heterogeneous character, i.e., different professionals, clients and care needs, there is a need for a tailored approach to implement IPC and sustain it successfully in disability care. Our findings can inform future IPC practice improvements.