Assessing infection prevention and control structures in German hospitals after the COVID-19 pandemic using the WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework (IPCAF): results from 660 hospitals and comparison with a pre-pandemic survey

Abstract

BackgroundThe WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) is a standardized tool to assess infection prevention and control (IPC) structures in healthcare facilities. The IPCAF reflects the eight WHO core components (CC) of IPC. Besides facility self-assessment, the IPCAF can be used for national surveys, and repeated usage can aid in describing trends concerning IPC structures. A previous survey in over 700 German hospitals conducted in 2018, yielded an overall high IPC level in participating hospitals, albeit with potentials for improvement. In 2023, the survey was repeated to describe once again the state of IPC implementation in German hospitals and compare findings to data from 2018.MethodsThe German National Reference Center for the Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections (NRC) invited 1,530 German acute care hospitals participating in the national surveillance network “KISS”, to complete a translated online version of the IPCAF between October 2023 and January 2024. The questionnaire-like nature of the IPCAF, where each answer corresponds to a number of points, allows for calculating an overall IPC score. Based on the overall score, hospitals were allocated to four different IPC levels: inadequate (0–200), basic (201–400), intermediate (401–600), and advanced (601–800). Aggregated scores were calculated and compared with results from 2018.ResultsComplete datasets from 660 hospitals were received and analyzed. The median overall IPCAF score was 692.5 (interquartile range: 642.5–737.5), with 572 hospitals (86.6%) classified as advanced, and 87 hospitals (13.2%) as intermediate. One hospital (0.2%) fell into the basic category. The overall median score was virtually unchanged when compared to 2018 (690; data from 736 hospitals). The median score for the CC on workload, staffing and bed occupancy was markedly higher (85 vs. 75), whereas the median score for the CC on multimodal strategies was slightly lower than in 2018 (75 vs. 80).ConclusionsRepeated assessments of IPC structures at the national level with the IPCAF are feasible and a means to gain insights into the evolution of IPC structures. When comparing aggregated scores, a stable and high level of IPC key aspects in Germany was observed, with improvements over time in IPC indicators related to workload and staffing.