Infection Prevention And Control Training Research Articles

Mapping of infection prevention and control education and training in some countries of the World Health Organization’s Eastern Mediterranean Region: current situation and future needs

BackgroundA strong understanding of infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures and comprehensive training among healthcare workers is essential for effective IPC programs. These elements play a crucial role in breaking the chain of nosocomial infections by preventing the transmission of resistant organisms to patients and staff members. This study mapped the components of IPC education and training across various member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) at national, academic, and healthcare institutional levels.MethodsA self-administered structured online questionnaire based on the WHO “Core Component 3” of IPC programs at the national and acute healthcare facility levels (IPC education and training) was given to national IPC focal persons in each of the WHO’s EMR countries between February and March 2023.ResultsFrom 14 of the 22 countries,15 IPC persons participated in the survey. Most countries have scattered nonhomogeneous IPC education programs in human health undergraduate majors without considering it a standalone module. Academic institutions are rarely involved, and elaborate and predefined undergraduate IPC education programs provided by universities are present in 21.4% of the countries. In 71.4% of these countries, postgraduate training targeting IPC professionals is provided by national IPC teams, primarily based on national IPC guidelines developed with the aid of the WHO. Generally, healthcare worker training relies heavily on healthcare facilities in 92.9% of the countries, rather than on a national training program. In 42.9% of the countries, practicing IPC physicians are not necessarily specialists of infectious disease or medical microbiologists and IPC nurses are not required to specialize in IPC. However, nonspecialized IPC professionals are expected to undergo training upon employment and before beginning practice. Nongovernmental organizations such as the WHO play a significant role in IPC education and in supporting national IPC authorities in establishing national IPC guidelines, as it is the case in 78.6% of these countries.ConclusionClear disparities exist in IPC education and training across different countries in the WHO’s EMR. Establishing a regional scientific network specializing in IPC would help bridge the existing gaps and standardize this education within individual countries and across countries in the region. This region needs to establish IPC certification standards and standardized education curricula.

The importance of the IPC lead

Glenys Bridges details how the infection prevention and control (IPC) lead delivers safe and sustainable infection control. Aim This article aims to explore the essential requirements for effective infection prevention and show how these are fulfilled by infection control leads (IPC). It will identify the available resources and support available to maintain required Infection Prevention and Control standards and explain the importance of creating sustainable IPC through delegating and allocating roles and tasks. Objectives Develop the decon lead role to assure infector control outcomes. Specify the infection control leads role and job description. Define appropriate IPC training and development opportunities for the team.

Characterizing infection prevention programs and urinary tract infection prevention practices in nursing homes: A mixed-methods study.

US policies require robust nursing home (NH) infection prevention and control (IPC) programs to ensure safe care. We assessed IPC resources and practices related to catheter and non-catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI and UTI) prevention among NHs. We conducted a mixed-methods study from April 2018 through November 2019. Quantitative surveys assessed NH IPC program resources, practices, and communication during resident transfer. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on IPC programs, CAUTI and UTI prevention practices, and resident transfer processes. Using a matrix as an analytic tool, findings from the quantitative survey data were combined with the qualitative data in the form of a joint display. Representatives from 51 NHs completed surveys; interviews were conducted with 13 participants from 7 NHs. Infection preventionists (IPs) had limited experience and/or additional roles, and in 36.7% of NHs, IPs had no specific IPC training. IP turnover was often mentioned during interviews. Most facilities were aware of their CAUTI and UTI rates and reported using prevention practices, such as hydration (85.7%) or nurse-initiated catheter discontinuation (65.3%). Qualitative interviewees confirmed use of these practices and expressed additional concerns about overuse of urine testing and antibiotics. Although transfer sheets were used by 84% to communicate about infections, the information received was described as suboptimal. NHs identified IP challenges related to turnover, limited education, and serving multiple roles. However, most NHs reported awareness of their CAUTI and UTI rates as well as their use of prevention practices. Importantly, we identified opportunities to enhance communication between NHs and hospitals to improve resident care and safety.

Public health infection prevention: An analysis of existing training during the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectivesIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, agencies and organizations required trainings to support the needs of the public health workforce. To better understand the training resources available, this study identified, organized, and classified infection prevention and control (IPC) training and educational opportunities. Study designEnvironmental scan. MethodsA total of 306 IPC training resources were compiled between January and April 2021. Key themes and topics were identified and compared to the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee's (HICPAC) core IPC practices. ResultsThree hundred and six training resources, including webinars, fact sheets, module-based learning activities, infographics, and professional practice guidance materials, were identified. Common themes included proper use of personal protective equipment (e.g., masks, gloves), community reopening guidance, and mass vaccination resources. A large proportion (74.9%) of trainings were under 60 min. Using the HICPAC framework, the most frequently addressed content included standard precautions (40%), leadership support (31.6%), and transmission-based precautions (25.8%). Few trainings addressed performance monitoring and feedback (17.1%). ConclusionsA wide range of organizations developed IPC-specific content during the pandemic. However, these resources did not address the breadth of knowledge required to implement IPC concepts effectively. The creation of universally applicable IPC core competencies and the development of high-quality IPC education and trainings for public health and the overall responder workforces should be prioritized. Accessible high-quality online and just-in-time trainings are critical for future pandemic and disaster preparedness.

Lassa Fever Infection among Healthcare Workers during the 2018 Outbreak in Nigeria

Introduction: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are potentially exposed to infection during viral hemorrhagic fever outbreaks. In the wake of 2018, Nigeria experienced an unprecedented surge in cases of Lassa fever (LF), which affected HCWs. To guide infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies in similar settings, we characterize HCWs' infection and describe the gaps in IPC standards and practices during the outbreak. Methods: Data was collected using a structured questionnaire, interview, and review of case notes of 21 HCW with laboratory-confirmed Lassa fever who were treated at the Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital (ISTH) Irrua and the Alex-Ekwemen Federal Teaching Hospital, Abakaliki (AEFETHA), between 1st January and 27th May 2018. Information collected was the patients' socio-demographic characteristics, date of potential exposure and onset of illness, nature, and type of exposure, clinical features, outcome, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and personnel IPC training and were analyzed using descriptive statistics with Microsoft Excel. Results: The study included 21 HCWs, and 12 (57.14%) were doctors. The case fatality rate was 23%. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of the HCWs could describe a likely procedure leading to their exposure and infection. Among 13 HCWs, 85% had multiple blood and body fluids exposure, while 15% had needle stick injury or scalpel cut. About one-fifth of the participants had received some IPC training. Conclusion: Limited IPC adherence and inappropriate risk assessment were identified as factors leading to Lassa fever exposure and infection among HCWs. There is an urgent need to provide IPC training for all HCWs and to ensure an adequate supply of IPC materials to all healthcare facilities as part of emergency preparedness, especially in LF endemic areas.

Oregon Project Firstline: A needs assessment of healthcare personnel infection prevention knowledge and training preferences

Background: Infection prevention and control (IPC) competency is critical for healthcare personnel (HCP) and patient safety. In collaboration with the CDC new national IPC training collaborative called Project Firstline, the Oregon Health Authority’s (OHA) Healthcare Associated Infection (HAI) Program established a state-level program in 2021. The goal of Oregon Project Firstline is to provide relevant, accessible, and engaging IPC training materials for our state’s HCP. We assessed the IPC learning needs of Oregon’s healthcare workforce, and to understand the preferred methods and formats of training across the various HCP roles. Methods: OHA’s HAI program recruited HCP by distributing electronic surveys through multiple healthcare, regulatory, and public health partners’ email listservs and HCP-targeted newsletters. Survey responses were recorded from September 23 to December 10, 2021. The HAI program assessed respondents’ IPC knowledge, online and in-person job training preferences, frequently used training devices, and trusted sources for IPC information. An individual’s understanding of an IPC topic was categorized based on their self-assessed confidence in their knowledge and ability to teach the topic to others. In total, 6,382 surveyed responses were analyzed. Results: The average understanding among HCP was lowest in IPC topics relating to triage and isolation of contagious patients and fit testing of respiratory protection devices. For these topics, 3,208 HCP (66.21%) and 3,657 HCP (75.48%) HCP, respectively, did not understand the topic well enough to teach others (Fig. 1). The highest number of HCP (n = 2,512, 39.36%) requested additional training in methods on how to educate others about IPC topics (ie, “train the trainer”). Surveyed respondents most frequently used personal computers for job trainings in both work and at-home settings (n = 4,603, 72.12%) and 3,437 HCP (53.85%) were open to either in-person or remote formats for job education. The CDC and OHA were the most frequented and trusted IPC sources among surveyed HCP: 4,124 HCP (64.62%) and 3,584 HCP (56.16%), respectively. Conclusions: IPC is a critical topic in HCP training across all healthcare facility types and employee roles. Effective educational planning includes understanding the learners’ knowledge needs and preferred methods of learning. Our learning needs assessment identified important IPC knowledge gaps and will help ensure that our training courses will be offered in effective educational formats for Oregon’s diverse HCP. Future training will include appropriate triage of potentially infectious patients, respiratory fit testing, and general IPC “train the trainer” sessions. Additionally, we will offer both in-person and remote options.Disclosures: None

Healthcare worker perceptions about infection prevention and control processes and practices in Latin America

Background: The burden of hospital-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Latin America is high. Improving engagement by healthcare workers (HCWs) in infection prevention and control (IPC) may lead to better patient outcomes; however, little is known about HCW perceptions of IPC in the region. We sought to understand HCW perceptions of IPC processes and practices. Methods: During August–September 2022, HCWs from 30 hospitals with IPC programs in 4 Latin American countries (Panama, Guatemala, Ecuador, and Argentina) were invited to participate in an electronic, voluntary, anonymous survey about their perceptions of IPC at their hospitals. Physicians, nurses, and environmental care (EVC) personnel were prioritized for recruitment. All respondents were asked 18 questions; IPC team members were asked 5 additional questions about specific activities implemented by IPC programs, how data are used, and how IPC could be improved. Answers with 5-point Likert scale responses were categorized into 2 groups (eg, strongly agree or agree vs neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree) for analysis. Results: Of 1,252 HCWs who completed the survey, 181 (14%) were IPC team members, 1,095 (87%) had direct patient contact, and 1,156 (92%) worked >20 hours per week. Figure 1 shows participant characteristics. Most participants (56%) rated their IPC program as very good, 38% rated it as good, and 6% rated it as bad. Physicians were less likely to give a favorable rating. Compliance with prevention bundles and hand hygiene (HH) by colleagues was rated as poor by 28% and 22% of HCWs, respectively; however, only 11% and 5% indicated that their own compliance was poor, respectively. Also, 25% of participants reported not receiving or only occasionally receiving HH compliance data. Similarly, 41% of participants reported not receiving HAI data on a regular basis, and 19% of IPC nurses reported not receiving data despite being responsible for conducting surveillance. Furthermore, 41% of respondents indicated not receiving or only occasionally receiving IPC training or education relevant to their role. When asked about the safety climate, 16% of participants reported not feeling appreciated. In addition, 22% of IPC nurses and 37% of individuals in the “other” category (eg, health technicians and therapists) were more likely to report this. When IPC team members were asked how frequently specific activities were conducted (Fig. 2), several opportunities for improvement were identified, including improving HCW access to HH data and development of strategic plans. Conclusions: Improving HCW access to training on IPC and to data on HAI burden and compliance with HH and prevention bundles should be emphasized in Latin American hospitals.Disclosures: None

An infection prevention and control program established in the wake of the Ebola epidemic: Where are we, and how well are we doing?

Background: Infection prevention and control (IPC) is a clinical and public health discipline based on a scientific approach and practical preventive and control measures. During the 2014–2016 West African Ebola outbreak, the high number of healthcare worker infections was attributed to inadequate IPC in Sierra Leone. This stimulated the establishment of national and subnational IPC programs. Since then, IPC has remained a priority to improve the health systems and strategic interventions during public health emergencies. Therefore, we conducted a detailed review to assess the status of the IPC programs. Methods: A descriptive analysis of the status of IPC programs in Sierra Leone was done using data from IPC assessments conducted in 2022 by the national IPC team, reviews of reports on program implementation, and experts’ objective opinions. Results:Performance. The national IPC assessment revealed strengths in 4 of 6 WHO IPC core components, with an overall score of 61% positioned at the ‘intermediate’ level of implementation. The best-performing component was ‘IPC guidelines’ (92%) with evidenced-based guidelines being developed and implemented over the years. Secondly, ‘Education and training’ (71%) made progress in basic and advanced IPC training, including the development of a preservice training curriculum. Also, ‘monitoring and audit and feedback’ (69%) and ‘IPC program’ (61%) met the basic requirements of an established Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) system. Similar progress was made at the healthcare facility level, but with major gaps in ‘workload, staffing, bed-occupancy’ and ‘safe or built environment.’ Sustainability efforts. Evidence-based data on IPC have always been scarce due to a limited capacity to conduct IPC research. The Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative (SORT-IT) on antimicrobial resistance has helped promote evidence-informed decisions and build OR capacity that is relevant to improving program performance. In 2019, Sierra Leone instituted in-country production of alcohol-based handrub and liquid soap as a strategic intervention for providing hand hygiene products for use in healthcare facilities. This intervention was essential during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although most aspects of IPC implementation are government led with strong leadership support, stable funding and sustainability planning are yet to be achieved and will be crucial for long-term success. Conclusions: Most aspects of the IPC core components have been well implemented at the national level since the establishment of the IPC program. However, the program should continue improving the scope and quality of implementation and focus on the development of long-term plans to sustain existing gains and further improve on gap areas at the national level and especially the healthcare-facility level.Disclosures: None

Infection prevention and control perspective and practices among healthcare workers in Bangladesh: A multicenter cross section

Background: Infection prevention and control (IPC) is a critical feature of preventing the spread of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in hospitals. IPC practices are particularly important in resource-constrained and crowded hospital settings. The successful implementation of infection prevention measures depends on healthcare worker (HCW) knowledge of, attitude toward, and practice (KAP) of IPC. In this project, we assessed the KAP of HCWs and identified factors associated with IPC compliance at tertiary-care hospitals in Bangladesh. Methods: From September 2020 to January 2021, we conducted this hospital-based cross-sectional assessment at 11 tertiary-care hospitals. A semistructured questionnaire was used to conduct face-to-face interviews with physicians, nurses, and cleaning staff who were directly involved in patient care. Based on >75% of the total score, each KAP component was divided into adequate knowledge, favorable attitude, and safe practice. We performed descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression to determine the KAP score and associated factors influencing IPC compliance in hospital settings. Results: In total, 1,728 HCWs were interviewed; 76.8% of the participants had adequate knowledge on IPC and 54.6% reported safe practices. However, only 16.2% of HCWs had a favorable attitude toward IPC. Among the 3 HCW groups, nurses had the highest KAP scores (76.07±12.7) followed by physicians (69.8±16.2), and cleaning staff (34.4±27.3). Only 29.2% of HCWs reported having received IPC training, and they cited heavy workload as a barrier to IPC guideline adherence. HCWs having adequate knowledge showed 9 times higher odds of safe IPC practice (AOR, 9.36; 95% CI, 5.47–16.04). HCWs who had a favorable attitude toward IPC were 16 times as likely to perform safe practice toward IPC activities (AOR, 15.5; 95% CI, 10.27–23.42). Conclusions: Knowledge of safe practices and having a favorable attitude toward IPC are key components of a successful IPC program. Significant improvements are required among all levels of HCWs in Bangladesh tertiary-care hospitals, especially cleaning staff. Educational interventions to train on IPC guidelines, plus monitoring, could improve HCW safe practices.Disclosures: None

Intensive care unit nurses' knowledge, attitudes and practices of COVID-19 infection prevention and control.

Intensive care units (ICUs) had to rapidly adapt infection prevention and control (IPC) practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To determine ICU nurses' COVID-19 IPC-related knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceptions. A mixed-methods study was conducted at the Groote Schuur Hospital ICU, Cape Town, South Africa (20 April 2021 and 30 May 2021). Participants completed anonymous, self-administered, knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) questionnaires. Individual interviews were conducted regarding nurses' lived experiences and perceptions of COVID-19 IPC in critical care. In total, 116 ICU nurses participated (93.5% response rate) including 57 professional nurses (49%), 34 enrolled nurses (29%) and 25 enrolled nursing assistants (22%); young females (31-49 years) predominating (n = 99; 85.3%). Nurses' overall COVID-19 IPC knowledge scores were moderately good (78%); professional nurses had greater knowledge of COVID-19 transmission (p < 0.001). Intensive care unit nurses' attitude scores towards COVID-19 IPC were low (55%), influenced by limited IPC training, insufficient time to implement IPC and shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). Respondents' scores for self-reported COVID-19 IPC practices were moderate (65%); highest compliance rates were for hand hygiene after touching patient surroundings (68%). Only 47% ICU nurses underwent N95 respirator fit-testing despite working in a COVID-19 ICU. Regular COVID-19 IPC training is needed to equip ICU nurses with the knowledge and skills to prevent healthcare-associated COVID-19 transmission. Enhanced IPC training and consistent PPE availability may support more favourable attitudes and better IPC practices. Comprehensive IPC and occupational health support should be offered to ensure ICU nurses' wellbeing during pandemics. Enhanced IPC training and consistent PPE availability may support better attitudes and IPC practices.

A continent-wide effort and solidarity at curbing COVID-19 pandemic: the Africa task force for novel coronavirus (AFTCOR) infection prevention and control technical working group’s experience

A continent-wide Africa Task Force for Coronavirus with its six technical working groups was formed to prepare adequately and respond to the novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Africa. This research in practice article aimed to describe how the infection prevention and control (IPC) technical working group (TWG) supported Africa Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) in preparedness and response to COVID-19 on the continent. To effectively address the multifaceted IPC TWG mandate of organizing training and implementing rigorous IPC measures at healthcare service delivery points, the working group was sub-divided into four sub-groups—Guidelines, Training, Research, and Logistics. The action framework was used to describe the experiences of each subgroup. The guidelines subgroup developed 14 guidance documents and two advisories; all of which were published in English. In addition, five of these documents were translated and published in Arabic, while three others were translated and published in French and Portuguese. Challenges faced in the guidelines subgroup included the primary development of the Africa CDC website in English, and the need to revise previously issued guidelines. The training subgroup engaged the Infection Control Africa Network as technical experts to carry out in-person training of IPC focal persons and port health personnel across the African continent. Challenges faced included the difficulty in conducting face-to-face IPC training and onsite technical support due to the lockdown. The research subgroup developed an interactive COVID-19 Research Tracker on the Africa CDC website and conducted a context-based operation and implementation research. The lack of understanding of Africa CDC’s capacity to lead her own research was the major challenge faced by the research subgroup. The logistics subgroup assisted African Union (AU) member states to identify their IPC supply needs through capacity building for IPC quantification. A notable challenge faced by the logistics subgroup was the initial lack of experts on IPC logistics and quantifications, which was later addressed by the recruitment of professionals. In conclusion, IPC cannot be built overnight nor can it be promoted abruptly during outbreaks of diseases. Thus, the Africa CDC should build strong national IPC programmes and support such programmes with trained and competent professionals.

Covid-19 Pandemic and Its Psychological Effects On Health Care Workers In A SocioEconomically Challenged Environment; A Cross-Sectional Analytical Study

Background: COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented global public health event, is a potential precipitating factor of psychological distress especially among Health Care Workers (HCWs) in developing countries already operating under challenging socioeconomic conditions. The study aims to assess the prevalence, sociodemographic patterns and predictors of stress, anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 Pandemic among HCWs in a socio-economically challenged environment. Methods: A cross-sectional analytical design used convenience and snowballing techniques to enrol 386 HCWs from public health institutions in Imo State, Nigeria from 2nd to 27th October 2021. A structured online questionnaire was used and the Kruskal Wallis H test and Logistic Regression were performed at a significance level, p≤ 0.05. Results: Prevalence and sample median levels of stress, anxiety and depression among the HCWs were 76.7% (18.0), 32.6% (43.8) and 33.4% (45.6) respectively. The median stress levels in the following subcategories were above the stress cut-off point (13.9) and were the highest amongst their respective subcategories. Those aged 20-29 years, female, single and also, those on the job for less than 1 year, who usually take public transport and are without training in infection, prevention and control (IPC). Similarly, the median anxiety levels in females and those without IPC training were above the anxiety cut-off point (49.9) and were highest amongst their respective subcategories and also, the median depression levels in females and single HCWs were above the depression cut-off point (52.9) and were highest amongst their respective subcategories. However, singles compared to married HCWs were significantly more likely to experience anxiety (OR: 1.84; p=0.049). and also, females compared to male HCWs were significantly more likely to experience either anxiety (OR: 1.76; p=0.013) or depression (OR: 1.88; p=0.006). Conclusion: The prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression appear to be high among HCWs, particularly in those that are young, female and single. Therefore, it is essential that even though, mental health and psychosocial support services should be accessible to all HCWs, priority services should be made available, accessible, and timely to those that are young, female and single.

Training a Continent: A Process Evaluation of Virtual Training on Infection Prevention and Control in Africa During COVID-19.

Strengthening infection prevention and control (IPC) capacity was identified as a key intervention to prepare African Union member states to curb the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the Africa Taskforce for Coronavirus, which helped implement the Africa Joint Continental Strategy for COVID-19 Outbreak response, the IPC Technical Working Group (IPC TWG) was convened to coordinate the development of IPC core components for preparedness, response, and recovery from COVID-19. As part of the IPC TWG's work, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, in collaboration with the Infection Control Africa Network, delivered virtual IPC training sessions targeted to African Union member states. We aimed to undertake a process evaluation of this training to inform and improve both ongoing and future programming. The scope of the evaluation was agreed upon through discussion with the training organizers and advisory members and a design workshop. A mixed-methods approach was used; data collection was partly prospective and partly retrospective due to the rapid start of some of the training activities. Existing available data included: usage analytics, the content of questions posed during the webinar and community of practice, and participant feedback survey results. In addition, in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with a sample of webinar participants. The rapid development of this training was efficient and responsive. The training reached more than 3,000 participants across the 2 rounds, but the numbers varied substantially by location. Participants engaged well during the question period during each webinar, but the asynchronous community of practice was less utilized during the evaluation time frame. Many participants appreciated the African focus of the webinars and gave positive feedback on the practical and context-specific content. The move toward online training provides an important opportunity to improve IPC across the African continent.

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of infection prevention and control among healthcare workers during the COVID 19 pandemic: a descriptive cross-sectional study in three Nigerian states

BackgroundEmergence of the COVID-19 pandemic created unexpected challenges for health care workers. The global and national supply chain system was disrupted, and affected infection, prevention and control (IPC) practices. This study aimed at documenting health workers knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) on IPC in Nigeria during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe descriptive, mixed-methods cross-sectional study was conducted in Ebonyi, Ondo and Niger states in October 2020. A structured questionnaire was administered to the health workers, complemented by semi-structured interviews that were audio recorded, transcribed and analyzed in Atlas.ti. Quantitative data were entered into REDCap and cleaned, transformed and analyzed using descriptive statistics in SPSS version 25.0 Findings from the qualitative interviews were used to explain the trends observed from quantitative study.ResultsThere were demographic differences between community and facility-based health workers in our population. A greater proportion of facility-based providers reported having IPC training compared to community-based health workers ever (p < 0.01) and during the pandemic (p < 0.05). Health care workers had moderate knowledge of general IPC, and attitudes toward and practice of IPC during COVID-19 pandemic. However, the knowledge of the relative effectiveness of prevention measures was low. The mean knowledge scores were greater among facility-based workers compared to community based healthcare workers (p = 0.001). Self-reported IPC practices increased during the pandemic compared to prior to the pandemic, with the exception of the use of N-95 masks and hand sanitizer.ConclusionThis study found moderate IPC knowledge, attitudes and practices in our study population during the pandemic as compared to pre-pandemic for the study found gaps in correct hand hygienevaried application of different IPC practices to ensure adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures. The study recommends sustained training for IPC and encourages policy makers that budget line specific to COVID-19 response across all the levels of health care delivery will enhance compliance and emergency readiness.

Assessment of potential risk factors for COVID-19 among health care workers in a health care setting in Delhi, India -a cohort study.

Healthcare workers (HCW) are most vulnerable to contracting COVID-19 infection. Understanding the extent of human-to-human transmission of the COVID-19 infection among HCWs is critical in managing this infection and for policy making. We did this study to estimate new infection by seroconversion among HCWs in recent contact with COVID-19 and predict the risk factors for infection. A cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care COVID-19 hospital in New Delhi during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. All HCWs working in the hospital during the study period who came in recent contact with the patients were our study population. The data was collected by a detailed face-to-face interview, serological assessment for anti- COVID-19 antibodies at baseline and end line, and daily symptoms. Potential risk factors for seroprevalence and seroconversion were analyzed by logistic regression keeping the significance at p<0.05. A total of 192 HCWs were recruited in this study, out of which 119 (62.0%) were seropositive. Almost all were wearing Personal protective equipment (PPE) and following Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures during their recent contact with a COVID-19 patient. Seroconversion was observed among 36.7% of HCWs, while 64.0% had a serial rise in the titer of antibodies during the follow-up period. Seropositivity was negatively associated with being a doctor (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.18-0.71), having COVID-19 symptoms (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.82), having comorbidities (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.67), and received IPC training (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.86), while positively associated with partial (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.26-8.69), as well as complete vaccination for COVID-19 (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.12-5.27). Seroconversion was positively associated with doctor as a profession (OR 13.04, 95% CI 3.39-50.25) and with partially (OR 4.35, 95% CI 1.07-17.65), as well as fully vaccinated for COVID-19 (OR 6.08, 95% CI 1.73-21.4). No significant association was observed between adherence to any IPC measures and PPE adopted by the HCW during the recent contact with COVID-19 patients and seroconversion. Almost all the HCW practiced IPC measures in these settings. High seropositivity and seroconversion are most likely due to concurrent vaccination against COVID-19 rather than recent exposure to COVID-19 patients. Further studies using anti-N antibodies serology may help us find the reason for the seropositivity and seroconversion among HCWs.

Adherence to Infection Prevention and Control Measures Among Health-Care Workers Serving in COVID-19 Treatment Centers in Punjab, Pakistan.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are easily adoptable activities to prevent the spread of infection to patients as well as among health-care workers (HCWs). This cross-sectional study evaluated the adherence to IPC measures among HCWs working at coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment centers in Punjab, Pakistan. HCWs were recruited by means of convenient sampling through Google Form® using the World Health Organization risk assessment tool. All data were analyzed using SPSS 20. A total of 414 HCWs completed the survey (response rate = 67.8%), and majority of them were males (56.3%). Most of the HCWs were nurses (39.6%) followed by medical doctors (27.3%). Approximately 53% reported insufficiency of personal protective equipment (PPE), 58.2% did not receive IPC training and 40.8% did not have functional IPC team at their health facilities. The majority of HCWs (90%) used disposable gloves and N95 facemasks while interacting with COVID-19 patients. Nearly 45% used protective face shields and gowns before providing care to their patients. Hand hygiene practices while touching, and performing any aseptic procedure was adopted by 70.5% and 74.1% of HCWs, respectively. In conclusion, the adherence to IPC measures among Pakistani HCWs working in COVID-19 treatment centers is good despite the limited availability of PPEs. Their practices can be optimized by establishing institutional IPC teams, periodic provision of IPC training, and necessary PPE.

Self-reported adherence of healthcare workers to infection prevention and control practices during the early waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt

Introduction: Considering the absence of effective treatment, the World Health Organization had recommended stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) measures against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce its transmission. The non-adherence of healthcare workers (HCWs) to these measures had been reported as a major cause of infection. Aim: To assess the level of self-reported adherence of HCWs to IPC measures during their social life and work time. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 559 HCWs (411 females and 148 males) working at 39 hospitals across different Egyptian governorates. A predesigned structured questionnaire about COVID-19 IPC measures was completed by trained interviewers. Results: Washing hands before eating (98.2%), using soap for hand wash (97.9%), washing hands after returning home (96.6%), and wearing a face mask when going outside in public places (83.7%) were the commonest daily-life practices among the 559 studied HCWs, while the least common was social distancing (46.0%). Less than half of the studied HCWs were adherent to the proper duration of handwashing (P &lt; 0.01). Only 5.9% of the studied HCWs usually wore full personal protective equipment (PPE) at work (P = 0.051). The highest percentages of HCWs working at outpatient clinics and laboratories (98.1% each) ‘sometimes’ used PPE (P = 0.017). There was a significant difference in self-reported adherence to wearing face masks at hospitals according to specialties (P &lt; 0.01). HCWs working at intensive care units (ICUs) recorded the highest attendance rates at IPC training (53.8%, P = 0.012). A relatively higher percentage of HCWs at COVID-19 isolation hospitals wore PPE (15.7%) versus 2.2–4.7% in other hospitals (P = 0.015). Conclusion: The majority of HCWs sometimes complied with wearing PPE (93.6%). HCWs were more adherent to wearing masks at hospitals (94.6%) compared to community settings (42.9%). Older age and female gender were significantly associated with self-reported adherence to some IPC measures. Hand hygiene training session emphasizing the proper duration of hand wash is mandatory.

Evaluation of the characteristics of infection prevention and control programs and infection control committees in Brazilian hospitals: A countrywide cross-sectional study.

Data are scarce regarding hospital infection control committees and compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) recommendations in Brazil, a country of continental dimensions. We assessed the main characteristics of infection control committees (ICCs) on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in Brazilian hospitals. This cross-sectional study was conducted in ICCs of public and private hospitals distributed across all Brazilian regions. Data were collected directly from the ICC staff by completing an online questionnaire and during on-site visits through face-to-face interviews. In total, 53 Brazilian hospitals were evaluated from October 2019 to December 2020. All hospitals had implemented the IPC core components in their programs. All centers had protocols for the prevention and control of ventilator-associated pneumonia as well as bloodstream, surgical site, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Most hospitals (80%) had no budget specifically allocated to the IPC program; 34% of the laundry staff had received specific IPC training; and only 7.5% of hospitals reported occupational infections in healthcare workers. In this sample, most ICCs complied with the minimum requirements for IPC programs. The main limitation regarding ICCs was the lack of financial support. The findings of this survey support the development of strategic plans to improve IPCs in Brazilian hospitals.

Assessing implementation of prevention and infection control programs in armenian hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic

Aim of the study was to assess the current state of implementating key aspects of infection prevention and control (IPC) in Armenian hospitals, defined by the main WHO components, using the survey tool IPCAF (Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework). Materials and methods. 113 hospitals were involved in the study. All participants filled out the IPCAF questionnaire, consisting of 8 sections (each rated up to 100 points) devoted to various IPC aspects. Depending on the total final score, IPC programs were divided into the following categories: advanced (601800 points), intermediate (401600 points), basic (201400 points) and inadequate (0200 points). The study conducted a descriptive analysis of the overall IPCAF score as well as score evaluation of the relevant core components and some selected questions of particular interest. Results. The 2021 total average score for all IPCAF components for all hospitals in Armenia is 578.07.9 points, which is currently regarded as an intermediate level. At the same time, 47 (41.6%) hospitals were assigned to the advanced category, 63 (55.7%) to the average category and 3 (2.7%) to the basic category. Analysis of the main IPC components (CC, Core component) revealed that the maximum average scores were obtained for the components CC2 (IPC Guidelines) 80.8 points, CC8 (Creating a safe environment in medical premises, as well as materials and equipment for IPC) 75.5 points and CC7 (Workload, staffing and number of beds) 75.2 points. The lowest average scores were obtained for the key components: CC4 (Surveillance for healthcare-associated infections) with 54.7 points and CC3 (IPC education and training) with 59.5 points. Conclusion. Legislative and practical changes implemented in the real world during the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) pandemic have significantly contributed to improved scores for many key components of IPC programs. The study found that the IPCAF is a useful tool for assessing IPC standards and identifying gaps, regardless of a country economic development level. In our opinion, the re-use of IPCAF in all medical institutions should be encouraged, which is important for monitoring changes and trends in IPC, as well as proposing individual strategies in the development and improvement of IPC.

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

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 &amp;lt; 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.