An innovative quality improvement approach for rapid improvement of infection prevention and control at health facilities in Sierra Leone.

QUALITY CHALLENGE: The Sierra Leone (SL) Ministry of Health and Sanitation's National Infection Prevention and Control Unit (NIPCU) launched National Infection and Prevention Control (IPC) Policy and Guidelines in 2015, but a 2017 assessment found suboptimal compliance with standards on environmental cleanliness (EC), waste disposal (WD) and personal protective equipment (PPE) use. METHODS: ICAP at Columbia University (ICAP), NIPCU and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designed and implemented a Rapid Improvement Model (RIM) quality improvement (QI) initiative with a compressed timeframe of 6 months to improve EC, WD and PPE at eight purposively selected health facilities (HFs). Targets were collaboratively developed, and a 37-item checklist was designed to monitor performance. HF teams received QI training and weekly coaching and convened monthly to review progress and exchange best practices. At the final learning session, a "harvest package" of the most effective ideas and tools was developed for use at additional HFs. RESULTS: The RIM resulted in marked improvement in WD and EC performance and modest improvement in PPE. Aggregate compliance for the 37 indicators increased from 67 to 96% over the course of 4 months, with all HFs showing improvement. Average PPE compliance improved from 85 to 89%, WD from 63 to 99% and EC from 51 to 99%. LESSONS LEARNED: The RIM QIC approach is feasible and effective in SL's austere health system and led to marked improvement in IPC performance. The best practices are being scaled up and the RIM QIC methodology is being applied to other domains.

Identifying the priority infection prevention and control gaps contributing to neonatal healthcare-associated infections in low-and middle-income countries: results from a modified Delphi process.

Background: In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), neonatal healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and costs. When resources are limited, addressing HAI through infection prevention and control (IPC) requires prioritizing interventions to maximize impact. However, little is known about the gaps in LMIC that contribute most to HAI. Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify the leading IPC gaps contributing to neonatal HAIs in intensive care units and specialty care wards in LMIC. Additionally, a panel of 21 global experts in neonatology and IPC participated in an in-person modified Delphi process to achieve consensus on the relative importance of these gaps as contributors to HAI. Results: Thirteen IPC gaps were identified and summarized into four main categories: facility policies such as prioritizing a patient safety culture and maintaining facility capacity, general healthcare worker behaviors such as hand hygiene and proper device insertion and maintenance, specialty healthcare worker behaviors such as cleaning and reprocessing of medical equipment, and infrastructural considerations such as adequate medical equipment and hand hygiene supplies. Conclusions: Through a modified Delphi process, we identified the leading IPC gaps contributing to neonatal HAIs; this information can assist policymakers, public health officials, researchers, and clinicians to prioritize areas for further study or intervention.

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.