Hand hygiene for prevention and control of viral infections: the role of Amuchina Gel Xgerm

Background: Use of face mask and hand hygiene may break the chain of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 by reducing the infectiousness of the subclinical virus shedders while also offering some protection to the susceptible population. Aim and Objective: This study aims to assess the knowledge and practices of community wide use of face mask and hand hygiene for prevention and control of coronavirus disease. Materials and Methods: The cross-sectional, observational study carried out in Punjab, using an online questionnaire developed using Google Forms. General population excluding the health-care professionals were included in the study. The participants were selected using convenience snowball sampling. The study period was May 26–June 26 (30 days period). All responses fulfilling inclusion criteria and received within 15 days period after sharing the link will be included in the study. Statistical analysis was done using EPI INFO VERSION 7.0. Results: Maximum participants were between 20 and 39 years of age. About 97.70% knew the importance of hand hygiene in prevention of coronavirus infection. The usage of face mask was less at private settings like home or at work. The cleaning practices of cloth masks were improper. Further, the study population was aware of the importance of hand washing but the duration of hand washing with soap and water was not appropriate. Conclusion: Community of Punjab needs little more awareness regarding hand hygiene and face mask to prevent the transmission of coronavirus infection effectively.

Hospital infection prevention and control: A global perspective

What's trending in the infection prevention and control literature? From HIS 2012 to HIS 2014, and beyond

Responsibility for managing healthcare-associated infections: where does the buck stop?

4th Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections: A challenge for change

Infection Control Liaisons, Partners in CARES: Infection Prevention & Control

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention STRIVE Initiative: Construction of a National Program to Reduce Health Care-Associated Infections at the Local Level.

I. Anaesthesia and SARS

Aerosol generating procedures, dysphagia assessment and COVID-19: A rapid review.

Looking back to move forward

Joint Healthcare Infection Society (HIS) and Infection Prevention Society (IPS) guidelines for the prevention and control of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in healthcare facilities

Infection control and prevention (the routine use of infection prevention and control policies, procedures, and interventions in healthcare institutions) is fundamental to improving patient care outcome while ensuring the health and safety of healthcare workers, patients, and visitors. Healthcare facilities with an effective infection prevention and control (IPC) program have demonstrated a decrease in healthcare-associated infections, a common complication of interaction with healthcare, through adherence to IPC guidelines resulting in safer clinical care environments and impacting patient morbidity and mortality. A safer clinical care environment and adherence to certain basic principles are fundamental for IPC programs, all leading to an impact on patient morbidity and mortality. However, recent experience in developed countries suggests possible lowering of hospital-acquired infection rates is achieved only when infection control is accepted as core to the healthcare institutions. The prevalence of hospital-acquired infection (HCAI) is well known in developed countries (Rosenthal et al. 2011). These infections incur additional costs, extend hospitalization, increase treatment costs, increase antimicrobial resistance, increase disabilities, and increase patient morbidity and mortality. It is generally accepted due to a lack of robust surveillance systems that HCAIs are higher in low- and middle-income countries and especially in LMIC intensive care units. Healthcare-associated infection rates are generally higher in low- and middle-income countries compared with high-income countries resulting in a relatively larger incidence of patient mortality, disability, and additional healthcare cost. An earlier observation, the SENIC Study (1985) published by Haley RW et al. showed that 6% of nosocomial infection can be prevented by minimal infection prevention and control efforts and 32% could be prevented by a very well-organized infection prevention and control program. More recent published guidelines have demonstrated that it is possible to control the spread of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria priority organisms in low- and middle-income countries using IPC interventions despite resource limitations (WHO 2017). This narrative will attempt to define the important concept of “PROGRESS”—a roadmap to define the essential aspect of starting an infection prevention and control program “from scratch” with emphasis on resource-limited settings. The acronym PROGRESS from scratch in a resource-limited setting in low- and middle-income countries attempts to define mechanisms and multimodal strategies for starting IPC programs to reduce the overall patient morbidity and mortality associated with HCAIs in these settings.

Help or hindrance? Is current infection control advice applicable in low- and middle-income countries? A review of the literature

‘Led by the science’, evidence gaps, and the risks of aerosol transmission of SARS-COV-2

The study aimed to identify factors affecting hospital infection prevention and control practices among medical personnel at Kampala International University Teaching Hospital in Ishaka, Uganda. The research was conducted using a quantitative descriptive research design. The result revealed that 76% of respondents felt they had sufficient knowledge about infection control and prevention practices. However, 34% of respondents found precautionary measures interfered with their work, and 70% recap needles after use. Only 32% reported a 0.3% chance of acquiring HIV after a needle stick injury. The study also showed 44% of respondents had received training on hand washing within 6 months. Most respondents 78% were able to wash hands before and after procedures. Only 44% of respondents had received training on waste segregation within a 6-month period. Policies and guidelines also influenced infection prevention and control practices. 52% of respondents considered the hospital infection prevention and control committee active, and 78% of them believed that waste segregation and post-exposure prophylaxis policies were available in their departments. The study found that hand washing is being carried out as recommended due to adequate on-the-job training. However, 54% of staff perceive hand washing as a challenge, and 78% were able to wash hands before and after every procedure as recommended. Only 30% of workers have access to a regular supply of soap and detergents for washing hands. Waste segregation is being practiced as recommended, but challenges persist for medical personnel. The management team should integrate infection prevention and control into the regular supervision of healthcare providers. The study suggests that promoting hand washing in a hospital requires adequate training, facilities, supplies, staffing, and a positive attitude. It recommends frequent hand washing training, accessible running water infrastructure, disposable towels, and soap and detergents. Staff should be trained on attitude change and proper waste segregation. Keywords: Hospital, Infection, Waste, Hand washing, supplies, training.