scholarly journals Characteristics of On-Site Infection Prevention and Control Visits for COVID-19—California, February 2020–December 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. s50-s50
Author(s):  
Patrick Stendel ◽  
Ellora Karmarkar ◽  
Idamae Kennedy ◽  
Hosniyeh Bagheri ◽  
Teresa Nelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Healthcare Facility ◽  
Source Control ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
California Department ◽  
And Control

Background: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality in California: 2,218,000 cases and 24,598 deaths had occurred by December 31, 2020. Deaths at skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and assisted living facilities (ALFs) comprise 26.2% of deaths in California; the fatality rate (299 per 10,000 SNF and ALF residents) in such facilities is nearly 50 times the statewide COVID-19 mortality rate (6.4 per 10,000 California residents). For healthcare facility (SNF, ALF, acute-care hospitals) and correctional facility outbreak management, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI) Program deployed trained infection preventionists (IPs) to perform on-site infection prevention and control (IPC) assessments and to provide recommendations to staff and local health departments (LHDs). We describe the number and distribution of visits across the state and common IPC challenges identified. Methods: From February 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, CDPH IP visits were requested directly by facilities, coordinated through LHDs and other state agencies, or prompted by a facility’s increasing case count on twice weekly review of the daily California healthcare facility data survey (Survey 123). Deployed IPs evaluated facility COVID-19 IPC protocols, assessed facility staff adherence using a standardized assessment tool, and provided verbal feedback followed by written summary reports and recommendations. We categorized visits geographically into 5 California Health Officer Association regions and by month, and we reviewed visit reports for common findings. Results: In total, 623 visits were performed for 489 outbreaks at 465 distinct facilities across 46 LHDs; 71 facilities received ≥2 visits. Southern California facilities received 292 visits (46.9%), San Joaquin region facilities received 138 visits (22.2%), Bay Area facilities received 131 visits (21%), Greater Sacramento facilities received 54 visits (8.7%), and Rural North facilities received 8 visits (1.3%) (Figure 1). The highest number of visits per month occurred in December (n = 143, 22.9%), followed by July (n = 87, 13.9%), and April (n = 83, 13.3%). Common IPC challenges included inappropriate resident cohorting practices, improper use of personal protective equipment, and lapses in physical distancing, and source control in breakrooms. Conclusions: On-site visits by CDPH IPs during the COVID-19 pandemic in California, though resource-intensive, provided substantial technical support for healthcare facilities during outbreaks and identified key areas for IPC improvement. Ongoing CDPH HAI guidance and training materials for facility-based IP staff are now being informed by these IPC challenges.Funding: NoDisclosures: None

Hospital and community infection prevention and control (IPC)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Shears ◽  
Andrea Ledgerton ◽  
Rita Huyton
Keyword(s):  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Community Settings ◽  
Infection Surveillance ◽  
And Control ◽  
Community Infection

This chapter outlines the key principles of infection prevention and control (IPC) in both hospital and community settings. This includes understanding the structures surrounding infection prevention and control in these two different environments. It outlines some of the practical components including hand hygiene, infection surveillance, personal protective equipment, decontamination, and policies and guidelines. The chapter also covers the investigation and management of clusters/outbreak, and provides an outline of situations that require local health protection team input. Finally, the interface between community and hospital IPC is discussed, along with the importance of providing a seamless IPC service in all geographical areas.

scholarly journals 797. Infection Prevention and Control Training Needs and Preferences Among Frontline Health Professionals

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S494-S494
Author(s):  
Sarah Stream ◽  
M Salman Ashraf ◽  
Nada Fadul ◽  
Dan K German ◽  
Mounica Soma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Rural Setting ◽  
High Yield ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Training Topic ◽  
Peer Discussions ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background In 2020, the Nebraska Infection Control Assessment and Promotion program began collaborating with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NE DHHS) and the CDC to distribute infection prevention and control (IPC) training to frontline healthcare professionals (HCPs), focusing on nursing assistants (NAs), dentists, and other groups not traditionally targeted by IPC training. We conducted a learning needs assessment of these workers to plan high-yield curricula for each group. Methods We distributed an online survey to Nebraska’s frontline HCPs via local professional society email lists and the NE DHHS’s weekly newsletter. The survey asked respondents to identify their professional role, practice setting (urban vs suburban vs rural), preferred sources and formats of training, and perceived need for additional training across multiple IPC topics. Results 456 HCPs completed our survey, including 177 NAs, 72 nurses, and 59 dentists; most HCPs practiced in a rural setting (62%). HCPs viewed the CDC as the most trustworthy source of IPC training (92% trusted, vs 71% for local health authorities, 64% for professional societies, and 43% for academic institutions); versus other respondents, NAs had substantially lower trust in all groups except the CDC. Respondents were more often interested in self-paced learning (63%) or interactive discussion with experts (53%) versus peer discussions (40%) or lectures (34%). Compared with other respondents, dentists were least interested in peer discussions (27%) and NAs in lectures (15%). Triage and screening was the only IPC training topic a majority of all respondents (51%) requested, though majorities of nurses (58%) and dentists (51%) also wanted training on environmental cleaning. Hand hygiene (12%) and personal protective equipment use (27%) were the least requested IPC topics, especially among NAs (5% and 18%). Conclusion Nebraska’s frontline healthcare workers express high confidence in the CDC as a source of IPC training and prefer self-paced and expert discussion learning modalities. Key between-group differences indicate that individualizing curricula for NAs, dentists, and other HCPs may improve IPC training quality. Disclosures M. Salman Ashraf, MBBS, Merck & Co. Inc (Grant/Research Support, I have recieved grant funding for an investigator initiated research project from Merck & Con. Inc. However, I do not see any direct conflict of interest related to the submitted abstract) Nicolas W. Cortes-Penfield, MD, Nothing to disclose

scholarly journals Infection prevention and control compliance among exposed healthcare workers in COVID-19 treatment centers in Ghana: A descriptive cross-sectional study

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0248282
Author(s):  
Mary Eyram Ashinyo ◽  
Stephen Dajaan Dubik ◽  
Vida Duti ◽  
Kingsley Ebenezer Amegah ◽  
Anthony Ashinyo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Secondary Level ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Behavior Change Interventions ◽  
And Control

Compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) protocols is critical in minimizing the risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection among healthcare workers. However, data on IPC compliance among healthcare workers in COVID-19 treatment centers are unknown in Ghana. This study aims to assess IPC compliance among healthcare workers in Ghana’s COVID-19 treatment centers. The study was a secondary analysis of data, which was initially collected to determine the level of risk of COVID-19 virus infection among healthcare workers in Ghana. Quantitative data were conveniently collected using the WHO COVID-19 risk assessment tool. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses. We observed that IPC compliance during healthcare interactions was 88.4% for hand hygiene and 90.6% for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) usage; IPC compliance while performing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), was 97.5% for hand hygiene and 97.5% for PPE usage. For hand hygiene during healthcare interactions, lower compliance was seen among nonclinical staff [OR (odds ratio): 0.43; 95% CI (Confidence interval): 0.21–0.89], and healthcare workers with secondary level qualification (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08–0.71). Midwives (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09–0.93) and Pharmacists (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.02–0.92) compliance with hand hygiene was significantly lower than registered nurses. For PPE usage during healthcare interactions, lower compliance was seen among healthcare workers who were separated/divorced/widowed (OR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01–0.43), those with secondary level qualifications (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01–0.43), non-clinical staff (OR 0.16 95% CI 0.07–0.35), cleaners (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.05–0.52), pharmacists (OR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01–0.49) and among healthcare workers who reported of insufficiency of PPEs (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.14–0.77). Generally, healthcare workers’ infection prevention and control compliance were high, but this compliance differs across the different groups of health professionals in the treatment centers. Ensuring an adequate supply of IPC logistics coupled with behavior change interventions and paying particular attention to nonclinical staff is critical in minimizing the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the treatment centers.

scholarly journals 1239. Frequently Identified Infection Control Gaps in Outpatient Hemodialysis Centers

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S377-S377
Author(s):  
Kate Tyner ◽  
Regina Nailon ◽  
Margaret Drake ◽  
Teresa Fitzgerald ◽  
Sue Beach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infection Control ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background Little is known about infection control (IC) practice gaps in outpatient hemodialysis centers (OHDC). Hence, we examined the frequency of IC gaps and the factors associated with them. Methods The Nebraska (NE) Infection Control Assessment and Promotion Program (ICAP) in collaboration with NE Department of Health and Human Services conducted on-site visits to assess infection prevention and control programs (IPCP) in 15 OHDC between June 2016 and March 2018. The CDC Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Tool for Hemodialysis Facilities was used for IPCP evaluation. A total of 124 questions, 76 of which represented best practice recommendations (BPR) were analyzed in 10 IC domains. Gap frequencies were calculated for each BPR. Fisher’s exact test was used to study the association of the identified gaps with typical patient census of the facilities and chain affiliation (CA). Results Of the 15 OHDC, seven were large centers (typically following >50 patients) and 11 were part of national chains. Important IC gaps exist in all OHDC. A median of 64 (range 57–70) of 76 BPR were being followed by OHDC or were nonapplicable to them. The IC Program and Infrastructure domain had the highest frequency of IC gaps (Figure 1). Figure 2 describes the top 5 IC gaps. Smaller OHDC (sODHC) and those without CA performed better in a few areas. For example, a higher proportion of sODHC had work exclusion policies that encourage reporting of illness without any penalty when compared with larger OHDC (75% vs. 0, P = 0.01). Similarly, a higher proportion of sOHDC provided space and encouraged persons with symptoms of respiratory infection to sit as far away from others as possible in nonclinical areas (63% vs. 0, P < 0.05). None of the nonchain OHDC had shared computer charting terminals when compared with 64% of OHDC with CA (P = 0.08) and a majority of nonchain OHDC provided space and encouraged persons to maintain distance with others when having respiratory symptoms as opposed to a minority of OHDC with CA (75% vs. 18%, 0.08). Conclusion Important IC gaps exist in OHDC and require mitigation. Informing OHDC of existing IC gaps may help in BPR implementation. Larger scale studies should focus on identifying factors promoting certain BPR implementation in smaller and nonchain OHDC. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Gaps in Infection Prevention and Control in Public Health Facilities of Sierra Leone after the 2014–2015 Ebola Outbreak

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
James Sylvester Squire ◽  
Imurana Conteh ◽  
Arpine Abrahamya ◽  
Anna Maruta ◽  
Ruzanna Grigoryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Community Health ◽  
Sierra Leone ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
District Hospital ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
And Control ◽  
Isolation Facilities

Background: High compliance to infection prevention and control (IPC) is vital to prevent health care-associated infections. In the worst 2014–2015 Ebola-affected district in Sierra Leone (Kenema), we assessed (a) average yearly IPC compliance (2016–2018) using a National IPC assessment tool in the district hospital and peripheral health units (PHUs), and (b) gaps in IPC activities, infrastructure and consumables in 2018. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using secondary program data. Results: At the district hospital, compliance increased from 69% in 2016 to 73% in 2018 (expected minimal threshold = 70%; desired threshold ≥ 85%). Compliance for screening/isolation facilities and decontamination of medical equipment reached 100% in 2018. The two thematic areas with the lowest compliance were sanitation (44%) and sharps safety (56%). In PHUs (2018), the minimal 70% compliance threshold was not achieved in two (of 10 thematic areas) for Community Health Centers, four for Community Health Posts, and five for Maternal and Child Health Units. The lowest compliance was for screening and isolation facilities (range: 33–53%). Conclusion: This baseline assessment is an eye opener of what is working and what is not, and can be used to galvanize political, financial, and material resources to bridge the existing gaps.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document