An assessment of infection prevention and control implementation in Malawian hospitals using the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) tool

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Dorica Ng'ambi , Thomasena O'Byrne , Emmie Jingini , Hope Chadwala , Owen Musopole , Wala Kamchedzera , Tara Tancred , Nicholas Feasey
{"title":"An assessment of infection prevention and control implementation in Malawian hospitals using the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) tool","authors":"Dorica Ng'ambi ,&nbsp;Thomasena O'Byrne ,&nbsp;Emmie Jingini ,&nbsp;Hope Chadwala ,&nbsp;Owen Musopole ,&nbsp;Wala Kamchedzera ,&nbsp;Tara Tancred ,&nbsp;Nicholas Feasey","doi":"10.1016/j.infpip.2024.100388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Infection prevention and control (IPC) is important for the reduction of healthcare-associated infections (HAI). The World Health Organization (WHO) developed the IPC Assessment Framework (IPCAF) tool to assess the level of IPC implementation and to identify areas for improvement in healthcare facilities.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A cross -sectional survey was conducted using the WHO IPCAF tool from May to June 2023. The aim was to provide a baseline assessment of the IPC programme and activities within health care facilities in Malawi. Forty healthcare facilities were invited to participate. IPC teams were requested to complete the IPCAF and return the scores. The IPCAF tool scores were assessed as recommended in the WHO IPCAF tool.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The response rate was 82.5%. The median IPCAF score was 445 out of 800 corresponding to an intermediate IPC implementation level. The results revealed that 66.7% facilities were at intermediate level, 26.4% at basic level, and 6.9% at advanced level. Most facilities (76%) had an IPC program in place with clear objectives and an IPC focal person. Few had a dedicated budget for IPC. The IPCAF domain “monitoring/audit of IPC practices and feedback” had the lowest median score of 15/100, and in 90% of facilities, no monitoring, audit, and feedback was done. HAI surveillance median score was 40/100, workload, staffing and bed occupancy median score was 45/100.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Whilst there has been some degree of implementation of WHO IPC guidelines in Malawi's healthcare system, there is significant room for improvement. The IPCAF tool revealed that monitoring/audit and feedback, HAI surveillance and workload, staffing and bed occupancy need to be strengthened. The IPCAF scoring system may need reconsidering given the centrality of these domains to IPC.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":33492,"journal":{"name":"Infection Prevention in Practice","volume":"6 4","pages":"Article 100388"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590088924000520/pdfft?md5=8b28b2547fe669741f33b412897af756&pid=1-s2.0-S2590088924000520-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Prevention in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590088924000520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Infection prevention and control (IPC) is important for the reduction of healthcare-associated infections (HAI). The World Health Organization (WHO) developed the IPC Assessment Framework (IPCAF) tool to assess the level of IPC implementation and to identify areas for improvement in healthcare facilities.

Methods

A cross -sectional survey was conducted using the WHO IPCAF tool from May to June 2023. The aim was to provide a baseline assessment of the IPC programme and activities within health care facilities in Malawi. Forty healthcare facilities were invited to participate. IPC teams were requested to complete the IPCAF and return the scores. The IPCAF tool scores were assessed as recommended in the WHO IPCAF tool.

Results

The response rate was 82.5%. The median IPCAF score was 445 out of 800 corresponding to an intermediate IPC implementation level. The results revealed that 66.7% facilities were at intermediate level, 26.4% at basic level, and 6.9% at advanced level. Most facilities (76%) had an IPC program in place with clear objectives and an IPC focal person. Few had a dedicated budget for IPC. The IPCAF domain “monitoring/audit of IPC practices and feedback” had the lowest median score of 15/100, and in 90% of facilities, no monitoring, audit, and feedback was done. HAI surveillance median score was 40/100, workload, staffing and bed occupancy median score was 45/100.

Conclusions

Whilst there has been some degree of implementation of WHO IPC guidelines in Malawi's healthcare system, there is significant room for improvement. The IPCAF tool revealed that monitoring/audit and feedback, HAI surveillance and workload, staffing and bed occupancy need to be strengthened. The IPCAF scoring system may need reconsidering given the centrality of these domains to IPC.

利用世界卫生组织感染预防与控制评估框架(IPCAF)工具评估马拉维医院的感染预防与控制实施情况
背景感染预防与控制(IPC)对于减少医疗相关感染(HAI)非常重要。世界卫生组织(WHO)开发了IPC评估框架(IPCAF)工具,用于评估医疗机构实施IPC的水平,并确定需要改进的领域。目的是对马拉维医疗机构的 IPC 计划和活动进行基线评估。40 家医疗机构应邀参加了调查。要求 IPC 小组完成 IPCAF 并交回分数。按照世界卫生组织 IPCAF 工具的建议,对 IPCAF 工具得分进行了评估。IPCAF 分数的中位数为 445 分(满分 800 分),处于 IPC 实施的中等水平。结果显示,66.7%的机构处于中级水平,26.4%处于基础水平,6.9%处于高级水平。大多数医疗机构(76%)都制定了 IPC 计划,并有明确的目标和 IPC 联络人。很少有机构为 IPC 划拨了专项预算。IPCAF领域 "IPC实践的监测/审计和反馈 "的中位数得分最低,仅为15/100,90%的机构没有进行监测、审计和反馈。HAI 监测的中位数得分为 40/100,工作量、人员配备和床位占用率的中位数得分为 45/100。IPCAF 工具显示,监测/审计和反馈、HAI 监测和工作量、人员配备和床位占用率需要加强。鉴于这些领域对 IPC 的核心作用,IPCAF 评分系统可能需要重新考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Infection Prevention in Practice
Infection Prevention in Practice Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
61 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信