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".

The effectiveness of hand hygiene interventions for preventing community transmission or acquisition of novel coronavirus or influenza infections: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Novel coronaviruses and influenza can cause infection, epidemics, and pandemics. Improving hand hygiene (HH) of the general public is recommended for preventing these infections. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of HH interventions for preventing transmission or acquisition of such infections in the community. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were searched (January 2002-February 2022) for empirical studies related to HH in the general public and to the acquisition or transmission of novel coronavirus infections or influenza. Studies on healthcare staff, and with outcomes of compliance or absenteeism were excluded. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias criteria or Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklists, were conducted by one reviewer, and double-checked by another. For intervention studies, effect estimates were calculated while the remaining studies were synthesised narratively. The protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020196525). RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. Six were intervention studies evaluating the effectiveness of HH education and provision of products, or hand washing against influenza. Only two school-based interventions showed a significant protective effect (OR: 0.64; 95% CI 0.51, 0.80 and OR: 0.40; 95% CI 0.22, 0.71), with risk of bias being high (n = 1) and unclear (n = 1). Of the 16 non-intervention studies, 13 reported the protective effect of HH against influenza, SARS or COVID-19 (P < 0.05), but risk of bias was high (n = 7), unclear (n = 5) or low (n = 1). However, evidence in relation to when, and how frequently HH should be performed was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of effectiveness of HH for prevention of community transmission or acquisition of respiratory viruses that have caused epidemics or pandemics, including SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. The evidence supporting the protective effect of HH was heterogeneous and limited by methodological quality; thus, insufficient to recommend changes to current HH guidelines. Future work is required to identify in what circumstances, how frequently and what product should be used when performing HH in the community and to develop effective interventions for promoting these specific behaviours in communities during epidemics.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) implementation in low-resource settings: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has again demonstrated the critical role of effective infection prevention and control (IPC) implementation to combat infectious disease threats. Standards such as the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC minimum requirements offer a basis, but robust evidence on effective IPC implementation strategies in low-resource settings remains limited. We aimed to qualitatively assess IPC implementation themes in these settings. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with IPC experts from low-resource settings, guided by a standardised questionnaire. Applying a qualitative inductive thematic analysis, IPC implementation examples from interview transcripts were coded, collated into sub-themes, grouped again into broad themes, and finally reviewed to ensure validity. Sub-themes appearing ≥ 3 times in data were highlighted as frequent IPC implementation themes and all findings were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with IPC experts from 29 countries in six WHO regions. Frequent IPC implementation themes including the related critical actions to achieve the WHO IPC core components included: (1) To develop IPC programmes: continuous advocacy with leadership, initial external technical assistance, stepwise approach to build resources, use of catalysts, linkages with other programmes, role of national IPC associations and normative legal actions; (2) To develop guidelines: early planning for their operationalization, initial external technical assistance and local guideline adaption; (3) To establish training: attention to methods, fostering local leadership, and sustainable health system linkages such as developing an IPC career path; (4) To establish health care-associated (HAI) surveillance: feasible but high-impact pilots, multidisciplinary collaboration, mentorship, careful consideration of definitions and data quality, and "data for action"; (5) To implement multimodal strategies: clear communication to explain multimodal strategies, attention to certain elements, and feasible but high-impact pilots; (6) To develop monitoring, audit and feedback: feasible but high-impact pilots, attention to methods such as positive (not punitive) incentives and "data for action"; (7) To improve staffing and bed occupancy: participation of national actors to set standards and attention to methods such as use of data; and (8) To promote built environment: involvement of IPC professionals in facility construction, attention to multimodal strategy elements, and long-term advocacy. CONCLUSIONS: These IPC implementation themes offer important qualitative evidence for IPC professionals to consider.

Time for a renewed focus on the role of cleaners in achieving safe health care in low- and middle-income countries.

Water, sanitation and hygiene, collectively known as WASH, is an enabler of infection prevention and control (IPC), both of which contribute to safe, quality health care and the prevention of spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This discussion paper considers the importance placed on the role of hygiene, including cleaning and those who clean, in health care facilities, within the context of existing data, guidelines and initiatives. Informed by this, the paper presents five areas for consideration that have the potential to strengthen and further demonstrate the value of this important cadre of staff and their role in clean, safe healthcare, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The considerations centre around actions to overcome the current data gaps, including the paucity of national data on environmental cleaning and the training of cleaners; strengthening the implementation of norms and standards; combining global and national advocacy efforts; revisiting investment; and addressing research gaps on the issue. The need to act, in line with WHO and UNICEF recommendations to address this overlooked and undercompensated workforce and to elevate their status as important contributors to IPC, WASH and AMR is a pressing one.

Core components of infection prevention and control programs at the facility level in Georgia: key challenges and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: The Georgia Ministry of Labor, Health, and Social Affairs is working to strengthen its Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Program, but until recently has lacked an assessment of performance gaps and implementation challenges faced by hospital staff. METHODS: In 2018, health care hospitals were assessed using a World Health Organization (WHO) adapted tool aimed at implementing the WHO's IPC Core Components. The study included site assessments at 41 of Georgia's 273 hospitals, followed by structured interviews with 109 hospital staff, validation observations of IPC practices, and follow up document reviews. RESULTS: IPC programs for all hospitals were not comprehensive, with many lacking defined objectives, workplans, targets, and budget. All hospitals had at least one dedicated IPC staff member, 66% of hospitals had IPC staff with some formal IPC training; 78% of hospitals had IPC guidelines; and 55% had facility-specific standard operating procedures. None of the hospitals conducted structured monitoring of IPC compliance and only 44% of hospitals used IPC monitoring results to make unit/facility-specific IPC improvement plans. 54% of hospitals had clearly defined priority healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), standard case definitions and data collection methods in their HAI surveillance systems. 85% hospitals had access to a microbiology laboratory. All reported having posters or other tools to promote hand hygiene, 29% had them for injection safety. 68% of hospitals had functioning hand-hygiene stations available at all points of care. 88% had single patient isolation rooms; 15% also had rooms for cohorting patients. 71% reported having appropriate waste management system. CONCLUSIONS: Among the recommended WHO IPC core components, existing programs, infrastructure, IPC staffing, workload and supplies present within Georgian healthcare hospitals should allow for implementation of effective IPC. Development and dissemination of IPC Guidelines, implementation of an effective IPC training system and systematic monitoring of IPC practices will be an important first step towards implementing targeted IPC improvement plans in hospitals.