Advertisement

Infection prevention and control program assessment tools: A comparative study

Published:January 30, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2022.01.020

      Highlights

      • Core components of an effective IPCP were defined by the World Health Organization.
      • Ideal IPCP assessment tool is easy to apply and interpret, with minimal experience requirements.
      • All tools evaluated are useful for practical audits of the IPCP and benchmarking.
      • The IPCPE and IPCAF had highest frequency of positive responses in the dimensions of effectiveness and purpose, respectively.
      • Flexibility, speed, and decisive decision making is essential.

      Background

      Infection prevention and control program (IPCP) assessment tools help to identify the improvement needs. This study aimed to identify fit-for-purpose of 3 IPCP assessment tools.

      Methods

      An exploratory mixed-method study was performed from 2018-2019 in Brazil, using a convenience sample of IPC professionals with various levels of experience to evaluate the IPCP tools: (1) the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework at the Facility Level (IPCAF), (2) the University of Sao Paulo IPCP tool (OGIPCP), and (3) the Infection Prevention and Control Programme Evaluation (IPCPE) tool. A quantitative survey followed by a semi-structured interview accessed the participants’ perceptions about these tools. Quantitative data analysis were descriptive and qualitative data were thematical.

      Results

      IPCPE was considered more complete, better for effectiveness, easy to apply, and with easily interpreted indicators. IPCAF was the best regarding to purpose, easy reporting, and interpretation; however, requires professional experience. OGIPCP have the fastest application, easy to understand, and easily calculated indicators, requiring less experience. Qualitative data endorsed the quantitative results and showed IPCPE and IPCAF tools as the most accepted.

      Conclusions

      The 3 assessment tools for IPCP have similar potential for use to support improvements in the IPCP. The IPCPE and IPCAF were considered advantageous on the effectiveness and fit-for-purpose compared to OGIPCP, despite the higher familiarity of participants with this tool.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Infection Control
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Allegranzi B
        • Kilpatrick C
        • Storr J
        • Kelley E
        • Park BJ
        • Donaldson L.
        Global infection prevention and control priorities 2018-22: a call for action.
        Lancet Glob Health. 2017; 5: e1178-e1180
        • World Health Organization
        Guidelines on Core Components of Infection Prevention and Control Programmes at the National and Acute Health Care Facility Level.
        2016https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00607.x
        • Zingg W
        • Holmes A
        • Dettenkofer M
        • et al.
        Hospital organisation, management, and structure for prevention of health-care-associated infection: a systematic review and expert consensus.
        Lancet Infect Dis. 2015; 15: 212-224
        • Zimmerman P-A.
        Help or hindrance? Is current infection control advice applicable in low- and middle-income countries? A review of the literature.
        Am J Infect Control. 2007; 35: 494-500
        • Tablan OC
        • Anderson LJ
        • Besser R
        • Bridges C
        • Hajjeh R.
        Guidelines for preventing health-care–associated pneumonia, 2003: recommendations of CDC and the healthcare infection control practices advisory committee.
        MMWR Recomm Rep. 2004; 53: 1-36
        • Dubberke ER
        • Gerding DN
        • Classen D
        • et al.
        Strategies to prevent Clostridium difficile infections in acute care hospitals.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008; 29: S81-S92
        • Calfee DP
        • Salgado CD
        • Classen D
        • et al.
        Strategies to prevent transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in acute care hospitals.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008; 29: S62-S80
        • Fisher D
        • Tambyah PA
        • Lin RTP
        • et al.
        Sustained meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus control in a hyper-endemic tertiary acute care hospital with infrastructure challenges in Singapore.
        J Hosp Infect. 2013; 85: 141-148
        • Cocanour CS
        • Peninger M
        • Domonoske BD
        • et al.
        Decreasing ventilator-associated pneumonia in a trauma ICU.
        J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care. 2006; 61: 122-130
        • Schmitt C
        • Lacerda RA
        • Turrini RNT
        • Padoveze MC.
        Improving compliance with surgical antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines: a multicenter evaluation.
        Am J Infect Control. 2017; 45: 1111-1115
        • Pittet D
        • Hugonnet S
        • Harbarth S
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene.
        Lancet. 2000; 356: 1307-1312
        • Allegranzi B
        • Nejad SB
        • Combescure C
        • et al.
        Burden of endemic health-care-associated infection in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Lancet. 2011; 377: 228-241
        • Bryce EA
        • Scharf S
        • Walker M
        • Walsh A.
        The infection control audit: the standardized audit as a tool for change.
        Am J Infect Control. 2007; 35: 271-283
        • Storr J
        • Twyman A
        • Zingg W
        • et al.
        Core components for effective infection prevention and control programmes: new WHO evidence-based recommendations.
        Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017; 6: 6
        • Delaney MB.
        Right to know: reducing risks of fecal pathogen exposure for ED patients and staff.
        J Emerg Nurs. 2014; 40: 352-356
      1. World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Accessed October 30, 2018. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519.

      2. World Health Organization. Infection prevention and control assessment framework at the facility level. 2018;May:1-15. Available at: http://www.who.int/infection-prevention/publications/core-com-.

        • Silva CPR
        • Lacerda RA.
        Validation of a proposal for evaluating hospital infection control programs.
        Rev Saude Publica. 2011; 45: 121-128
        • Zimmerman P
        • Yeatman H
        • Jones M
        • Murdoch H.
        Evaluating infection control: a review of implementation of an infection prevention and control program in a low-income country setting.
        Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41: 317-321
        • Padoveze MC
        • Fortaleza CMCB
        • Kiffer C
        • et al.
        Structure for prevention of health care-associated infections in Brazilian hospitals: a countrywide study.
        Am J Infect Control. 2016; 44: 74-79
        • Menegueti MG
        • Canini SRM da S
        • Bellissimo-Rodrigues F
        • Laus AM.
        Evaluation of nosocomial infection control programs in health services.
        Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2015; 23: 98-105
        • Alves DCI
        • Lacerda RA.
        Evaluation of programs of infection control related to healthcare assistance in hospitals.
        Rev da Esc Enferm. 2015; 49: 64-72
        • Schmitt C
        • Lacerda RA
        • Padoveze MC
        • Turrini RNT.
        Applying validated quality indicators to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in a Brazilian hospital: learning what should be learned.
        Am J Infect Control. 2012; 40: 960-962
        • Takahashi RF
        • Gryschek ALFPL
        • Izumi Nichiata LY
        • et al.
        Evaluation of biologic occupational risk control practices: quality indicators development and validation.
        Am J Infect Control. 2010; 38: 16-20
        • Santos TR dos
        • Padoveze MC
        • Nichiata LYI
        • Takahashi RF
        • Ciosak SI
        • Gryschek AL de FPL
        Indicators to assess the quality of programs to prevent occupational risk for tuberculosis: are they feasible?.
        Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2016; 24: e2695
        • Informal Network on Infection Prevention and Control in Health Care
        Core Components of Infection Prevention and Control Programmes. Report of the Second Meeting Informal Network on Infection Prevention and Control in Health Care.
        World Health Organization, Geneva2009 (WHO/HSE/EPR/2009.1)
        • Krippendorf K.
        Content Analysis : An Introduction to Its Methodology.
        Sage Publications, Beverly Hills1980
        • Tomczyk S
        • Aghdassi S
        • Storr J
        • et al.
        Testing of the WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework at acute healthcare facility level.
        J Hosp Infect. 2020; 105: 83-90
        • Hansen S
        • Schwab F
        • Zingg W
        • Gastmeier P.
        Process and outcome indicators for infection control and prevention in European acute care hospitals in 2011 to 2012 e results of the PROHIBIT study.
        Euro Surveill. 2017; 91: 338-345
        • Nogueira Júnior C
        • Mello D
        • Padoveze M
        • et al.
        Characterization of Epidemiological Surveillance Systems for Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI) in the World and Challenges for Brazil. 30. Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro2014: 11-20
        • Faizan M
        • Caniza M
        • Anwar S
        • et al.
        Infection prevention and control measures at the Children Hospital Lahore: a my child matters collaborative project.
        JCO Global Oncol. 2020; 6: 1540-1545
      3. World Health Organization. Hand hygiene self-assessment framework. 2010