World Health Organization World Hand Hygiene Day, 5 May 2024. SAVE LIVES: clean your hands campaign: promoting knowledge and capacity building on infection prevention and control, including hand hygiene, among health and care workers.

The World Health Organization's (WHO) World Hand Hygiene Day continues to "bring people together and accelerate hand hygiene action at the point of care in health care to contribute to a reduction in health care-associated infections and the achievement of safer, quality health care for all".

World Health Organization World Hand Hygiene Day, 5 May 2024. SAVE LIVES: Clean Your Hands campaign: Promoting knowledge and capacity building on infection prevention and control, including hand hygiene, among health and care workers.

The World Health Organization's (WHO) World Hand Hygiene Day continues to "bring people together and accelerate hand hygiene action at the point of care in health care to contribute to a reduction in health care-associated infections and the achievement of safer, quality health care for all."

Effectiveness and safety of measures to prevent infections and other complications associated with peripheral intravenous catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) contribute substantially to the global burden of infections. This systematic review assessed 24 infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions to prevent PIVC-associated infections and other complications. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, WHO Global Index Medicus, CINAHL and reference lists for controlled studies, from January 1, 1980-March 16, 2023. We dually selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and rated the certainty of evidence (COE). For outcomes with three or more trials, we conducted Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: 105 studies met our prespecified eligibility criteria, addressing 16 of the 24 research questions; no studies were identified for eight research questions.Based on findings of low to high COE, wearing gloves reduced the risk for overall adverse events related to insertion compared to no gloves (one non-randomised controlled trial [RCT]; adjusted risk ratio [RR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.85), and catheter removal based on defined schedules potentially resulted in a lower phlebitis/thrombophlebitis incidence (10 RCTs; RR: 0.74, 95% credible interval 0.49-1.01) compared to clinically indicated removal in adults. In neonates, chlorhexidine reduced the phlebitis score compared to non-chlorhexidine-containing disinfection (one RCT; 0.14 versus 0.68, p = 0.003). No statistically significant differences were found for other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their frequent use and concern about PIVC-associated complications, this review underscores the urgent need for more high-quality studies on effective IPC methods regarding safe PIVC management. In the absence of valid evidence, adherence to standard precaution measures and documentation remain the most important principles to curb PIVC complications.

Updates and future directions regarding hand hygiene in the healthcare setting: insights from the 3rd ICPIC alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) task force.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) pose threats to global health. Effective hand hygiene is essential for preventing HAIs and the spread of AMR in healthcare. We aimed to highlight the recent progress and future directions in hand hygiene and alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) use in the healthcare setting. In September 2023, 42 experts in infection prevention and control (IPC) convened at the 3rd International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control (ICPIC) ABHR Taskforce in Geneva, Switzerland. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a synthesis of recent evidence and formulate a research agenda on four critical areas for the implementation of effective hand hygiene practices: (1) ABHR formulations and hand rubbing techniques, (2) low-resource settings and local production of ABHR, (3) hand hygiene monitoring and technological innovations, and (4) hand hygiene standards and guidelines.

Estimating the return on investment of selected infection prevention and control interventions in healthcare settings for preparing against novel respiratory viruses: modelling the experience from SARS-CoV-2 among health workers.

Background: Insufficient infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in healthcare settings increase the SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among health workers. This study aimed to examine the level of preparedness for future outbreaks. Methods: We modelled the experience from the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed the return on investment on a global scale of three IPC interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections among health workers: enhancing hand hygiene; increasing access to personal protective equipment (PPE); and combining PPE, with a scale-up of IPC training and education (PPE+). Our analysis covered seven geographic regions, representing a combination of World Health Organization (WHO) regions and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Across all regions, we focused on the first 180 days of the pandemic in 2020 between January 1st and June 30th. We used an extended version of a susceptible-infectious-recovered compartmental model to measure the level of IPC preparedness. Data were sourced from the WHO COVID-19 Detailed Surveillance Database. Findings: In all regions, the PPE + intervention would have averted the highest number of new SARS-CoV-2 infections compared to the other two interventions, ranging from 6562 (95% CI 4873-8779) to 38,170 (95% CI 33,853-41,901) new infections per 100,000 health workers in OECD countries and in the South-East Asia region, respectively. Countries in the South-East Asia region and non-OECD countries in the Western Pacific region were poised to achieve the highest level of savings by scaling up the PPE + intervention. Interpretation: Our results not only support efforts to make an economic case for continuing investments in IPC interventions to halt the COVID-19 pandemic and protect health workers, but could also contribute to efforts to improve preparedness for future outbreaks. Funding: This work was funded by WHO, with support by the German Federal Ministry of Health for the WHOResearch and Development Blueprint for COVID-19.

Interventions for preventing or controlling health care-associated infection among health care workers or patients within primary care facilities: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: This review aimed to synthesize the evidence on infection prevention and control interventions for the prevention of health care-associated infection among health care workers or patients within primary care facilities. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for quantitative studies published between 2011 and 2022. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs tools, were conducted by independent review with additional sensitivity checking performed on study selection. RESULTS: Four studies were included. A randomized trial and a cross-sectional survey, respectively, found no statistical difference in laboratory-confirmed influenza in health care workers wearing N95 versus medical masks (P = .18) and a significant inverse association between the implementation of tuberculosis control measures and tuberculosis incidence (P = .02). For the prevention of surgical site infections following minor surgery, randomized trials found nonsterile gloves (8.7%; 95% confidence interval, 4.9%-12.6%) to be noninferior to sterile gloves (9.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.4%-11.1%) and no significant difference between prophylactic antibiotics compared to placebo (P = .064). All studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for infection prevention and control interventions for the prevention of health care-associated infection in primary care is very limited and insufficient to make practice recommendations. Nevertheless, the findings highlight the need for future research.

Benefits and harms of perioperative high fraction inspired oxygen for surgical site infection prevention: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: The use of high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) intraoperatively for the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) remains controversial. Promising results of early randomised controlled trials (RCT) have been replicated with varying success and subsequent meta-analysis are equivocal. Recent advancements in perioperative care, including the increased use of laparoscopic surgery and pneumoperitoneum and shifts in fluid and temperature management, can affect peripheral oxygen delivery and may explain the inconsistency in reproducibility. However, the published data provides insufficient detail on the participant level to test these hypotheses. The purpose of this individual participant data meta-analysis is to assess the described benefits and harms of intraoperative high FiO2compared with regular (0.21-0.40) FiO2 and its potential effect modifiers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers will search medical databases and online trial registries, including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO regional databases, for randomised and quasi-RCT comparing the effect of intraoperative high FiO2 (0.60-1.00) to regular FiO2 (0.21-0.40) on SSI within 90 days after surgery in adult patients. Secondary outcome will be all-cause mortality within the longest available follow-up. Investigators of the identified trials will be invited to collaborate. Data will be analysed with the one-step approach using the generalised linear mixed model framework and the statistical model appropriate for the type of outcome being analysed (logistic and cox regression, respectively), with a random treatment effect term to account for the clustering of patients within studies. The bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials V.2 and the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Prespecified subgroup analyses include use of mechanical ventilation, nitrous oxide, preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, temperature (<35°C), fluid supplementation (<15 mL/kg/hour) and procedure duration (>2.5 hour). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. Investigators will deidentify individual participant data before it is shared. The results will be submitted to a peer-review journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018090261.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among health workers in India: a case control study.

Background: COVID-19 was declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30th January 2020. Compared to the general population, healthcare workers and their families have been identified to be at a higher risk of getting infected with COVID-19. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the risk factors responsible for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among health workers in different hospital settings and to describe the range of clinical presentations of SARS-CoV-2 infection among them. Methodology: A nested case-control study was conducted among healthcare workers who were involved in the care of COVID-19 cases for assessing the risk factors associated with it. To get a holistic perspective, the study was conducted in 19 different hospitals from across 7 states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Rajasthan) of India covering the major government and private hospitals that were actively involved in COVID-19 patient care. The study participants who were not vaccinated were enrolled using the incidence density sampling technique from December 2020 to December 2021. Results: A total of 973 health workers consisting of 345 cases and 628 controls were recruited for the study. The mean age of the participants was observed to be 31.17 ± 8.5 years, with 56.3% of them being females. On multivariate analysis, the factors that were found to be significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 were age of more than 31 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.407 [95% CI 1.53-1.880]; p = 0.021), male gender (aOR 1.342 [95% CI 1.019-1.768]; p = 0.036), practical mode of IPC training on personal protective equipment (aOR 1. 1.935 [95% CI 1.148-3.260]; p = 0.013), direct exposure to COVID-19 patient (aOR 1.413 [95% CI 1.006-1.985]; p = 0.046), presence of diabetes mellitus (aOR 2.895 [95% CI 1.079-7.770]; p = 0.035) and those received prophylactic treatment for COVID-19 in the last 14 days (aOR 1.866 [95% CI 0.201-2.901]; p = 0.006). Conclusion: The study was able to highlight the need for having a separate hospital infection control department that implements IPC programs regularly. The study also emphasizes the need for developing policies that address the occupational hazards faced by health workers.

Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control health-care-associated infections: a systematic review.

Almost 9 million health-care-associated infections have been estimated to occur each year in European hospitals and long-term care facilities, and these lead to an increase in morbidity, mortality, bed occupancy, and duration of hospital stay. The aim of this systematic review was to review the cost-effectiveness of interventions to limit the spread of health-care-associated infections), framed by WHO infection prevention and control core components. The Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Cinahl, Scopus, Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation, and Global Index Medicus databases, plus grey literature were searched for studies between Jan 1, 2009, and Aug 10, 2022. Studies were included if they reported interventions including hand hygiene, personal protective equipment, national-level or facility-level infection prevention and control programmes, education and training programmes, environmental cleaning, and surveillance. The British Medical Journal checklist was used to assess the quality of economic evaluations. 67 studies were included in the review. 25 studies evaluated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outcomes. 31 studies evaluated screening strategies. The assessed studies that met the minimum quality criteria consisted of economic models. There was some evidence that hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, surveillance, and multimodal interventions were cost-effective. There were few or no studies investigating education and training, personal protective equipment or monitoring, and evaluation of interventions. This Review provides a map of cost-effectiveness data, so that policy makers and researchers can identify the relevant data and then assess the quality and generalisability for their setting.

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

BACKGROUND: Infection 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Fifty-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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.

Infection prevention and control risk factors in health workers infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Jordan: A case control study.

BACKGROUND: Despite under-reporting, health workers (HWs) accounted for 2 to 30% of the reported COVID-19 cases worldwide. In line with data from other countries, Jordan recorded multiple case surges among HWs. METHODS: Based on the standardized WHO UNITY case-control study protocol on assessing risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HWs, HWs with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited as cases from eight hospitals in Jordan. HWs exposed to COVID-19 patients in the same setting but without infection were recruited as controls. The study lasted approximately two months (from early January to early March 2021). Regression models were used to analyse exposure risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HWs; conditional logistic regressions were utilized to estimate odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for the confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 358 (102 cases and 256 controls) participants were included in the analysis. The multivariate analysis showed that being exposed to COVID-19 patients within 1 metre for more than 15 minutes increased three-fold the odds of infection (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.25-6.86). Following IPC standard precautions when in contact with patients was a significant protective factor. The multivariate analysis showed that suboptimal adherence to hand hygiene increased the odds of infection by three times (OR 3.18; 95% CI 1.25-8.08). CONCLUSION: Study findings confirmed the role of hand hygiene as one of the most cost-effective measures to combat the spreading of viral infections. Future studies based on the same protocol will enable additional interpretations and confirmation of the Jordan experience.