1203. Assessment of Infection Prevention and Control Programs in Acute Care Facilities in Central and South America

Abstract

Abstract Background Little is known about the development of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) programs in Latin American hospitals despite alarming rates of multidrug resistant healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in the region. The aim of this study was to identify gaps in implementation of hospital IPC programs in Latin America. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a self-assessment tool (Spanish version) adapted from the World Health Organization (WHO) Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) in March 2022. The survey was deployed to 40 hospitals in Panama, Guatemala, Ecuador, and Argentina through a regional research network. The instrument has 8 components (score 0-100), with 800 as maximum overall score. Facility IPC program implementation is categorized into four levels based on the final score: inadequate (0–200), basic (201–400), intermediate (401–600), or advanced (601–800). Median scores, overall and by component, were calculated. Additionally, for each question, we estimated the proportion of hospitals that met criteria stratified by private and public hospitals. Results Thirty five hospitals (14 private and 21 public) completed the evaluation (88% response rate), 83% were academic, and 14% were < 110 bed-hospitals. Overall, 57% of hospitals fell in the “Advanced” category (percentile [p]10: 518; p 50 614; p90 744). The median score for each component is shown in the Figure. IPC education and training, and workload, staffing and bed occupancy had the lowest median scores (Figure). In general, public hospitals had lower scores than private hospitals (Figure). Most hospitals performed surveillance for HAIs and hand hygiene, although fewer monitored compliance with adherence to prevention bundles or communicate these data to front-line workers. Additional gaps were identified, principally between private and public hospitals (Table). Figure: Median score for individual IPCAF component for all hospitals, private and public heathcare facilities. Conclusion While most participating hospitals were considered “advanced” based on the IPCAF score, several gaps were identified, which differed between public and private hospitals. Insufficient IPC education and training, workload, staffing and bed occupancy, multimodal strategies and lack of leadership support may be barriers to effective IPC programs in the region. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.