First nationwide survey of infection prevention and control among healthcare facilities in Japan: impact of the national regulatory system

Abstract

BackgroundInfection prevention and control (IPC) measures in Japan are facilitated by a financial incentive process at the national level, where facilities are categorized into three groups (Tier 1, Tier 2, or no financial incentive). However, its impact on IPC at the facility level using a validated tool has not been measured.MethodsA nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted from August 2019 to January 2020 to evaluate the situation of IPC programs in Japan, using the global IPC Assessment Framework (IPCAF) developed by the World Health Organization. Combined with the information on the national financial incentive system, the demographics of facilities and each IPCAF item were descriptively analyzed. IPCAF scores were analyzed according to the facility level of care and the national financial incentive system for IPC facility status, using Dunn-Bonferroni and Mann–Whitney U tests.ResultsFifty-nine facilities in Japan responded to the IPCAF survey: 34 private facilities (57.6%) and 25 public facilities (42.4%). Of these, 11 (18.6%), 29 (49.2%), and 19 (32.3%) were primary, secondary, and tertiary care facilities, respectively. According to the national financial incentive system for IPC, 45 (76.3%), 11 (18.6%), and three (5.1%) facilities were categorized as Tier 1, Tier 2, and no financial incentive system, respectively. Based on the IPCAF total score, more than half of the facilities were categorized as “Advanced” (n = 31, 55.3%), followed by “Intermediate” (n = 21, 37.5%). The IPCAF total score increased as the facility level of care increased, while no statistically significant difference was identified between the secondary and tertiary care facilities (p = 0.79). There was a significant difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 for all core components and total scores. Core components 5 (multimodal strategies for implementation of IPC interventions) and 6 (monitoring/audit of IPC and feedback) were characteristically low in Japan with a median score of 65.0 (interquartile range 40.0–85.0) and 67.5 (interquartile range 52.5–87.5), respectively.ConclusionsThe national financial incentive system was associated with IPC programs at facility level in Japan. The current financial incentive system does not emphasize the multimodal strategy or cover monitoring/audit, and an additional systematic approach may be required to further promote IPC for more practical healthcare-associated infection prevention.