Cross-site collaboration on infection prevention and control research-room for improvement? A 7-year comparative study in five European countries.

BACKGROUND: The spread of SARS-CoV-2, multidrug-resistant organisms and other healthcare-associated pathogens represents supra-regional challenges for infection prevention and control (IPC) specialists in every European country. To tackle these problems, cross-site research collaboration of IPC specialists is very important. This study assesses the extent and quality of national research collaborations of IPC departments of university hospitals located in Austria, England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, identifies network gaps, and provides potential solutions. METHODS: Joint publications of IPC heads of all university hospitals of the included countries between 1st of June 2013 until 31st of May 2020 were collected by Pubmed/Medline search. Further, two factors, the journal impact factor and the type/position of authorship, were used to calculate the Scientific Collaboration Impact (SCI) for all included sites; nationwide network analysis was performed. RESULTS: In five European countries, 95 sites and 125 responsible leaders for IPC who had been in charge during the study period were identified. Some countries such as Austria have only limited national research cooperations, while the Netherlands has established a gapless network. Most effective collaborating university site of each country were Lille with an SCI of 1146, Rotterdam (408), Berlin (268), Sussex (204), and Vienna/Innsbruck (18). DISCUSSION: The present study indicates major differences and room for improvement in IPC research collaborations within each country and underlines the potential and importance of collaborating in IPC.

A point prevalence survey on hand hygiene, with a special focus on Candida species.

BACKGROUND: A 1-day point prevalence study evaluated hand hygiene compliance, yeast colonization, and contamination, focusing on the hands of health care workers (HCWs) and patient-oriented surfaces. METHODS: Hand hygiene compliance was evaluated by applying the direct observation technique and the World Health Organization's compliance program, "My Five Moments for Hand Hygiene." A total of 128 samples from HCWs working in intensive care (n = 11) and intermediate care (n = 2) units and 65 environmental samples from Innsbruck Medical University Hospital were investigated. RESULTS: Hand hygiene compliance was superior for nurses (83.5%) and moderate for medical doctors (45.2%). In general, fungal growth was unique; only 9 of 128 HCW samples and only 4 of 65 environmental samples yielded positive results. The genetic relatedness of yeasts from the same species was investigated by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) typing. RAPD profiles exhibited the potential for cross-transmission of yeasts. CONCLUSION: In general, the fungal colonization and contamination rate was low, but a high level of hand hygiene compliance was lacking.