Scalability and Sustainability of a Surgical Infection Prevention Program in Low-Income Environments.

Importance: Surgical infections are a major cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality, particularly in low-resource settings. Clean Cut, a 6-month quality improvement program developed by the global nonprofit organization Lifebox, has demonstrated improvements in postoperative infectious complications. However, the pilot program required intense external programmatic and resource support. Objective: To examine the improvement in adherence to infection prevention and control standards and rates of postoperative infections in hospitals in the Clean Cut program after implementation strategies were updated and program execution was refined. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated and refined the Clean Cut implementation strategy to enhance scalability based on a qualitative study of its pilot phase, including formalizing programmatic and educational materials, building an automated data entry and analysis platform, and reorganizing hospital-based team composition. Clean Cut was introduced from January 1, 2019, to February 28, 2022, in 7 Ethiopian hospitals that had not previously participated in the program. Prospective data initiated on arrival in the operating room were collected, and patients were followed up through hospital discharge and with 30-day follow-up telephone calls. Exposure: Implementation of the refined Clean Cut program. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI); secondary outcomes were adherence to 6 infection prevention standards, mortality, hospital length of stay, and other infectious complications. Results: A total of 3364 patients (mean [SD] age, 26.5 [38.0] years; 2196 [65.3%] female) from 7 Ethiopian hospitals were studied (1575 at baseline and 1789 after intervention). After controlling for confounders, the relative risk of SSIs was reduced by 34.0% after program implementation (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.81; P < .001). Appropriate Surgical Safety Checklist use increased from 16.3% to 43.0% (P < .001), surgeon hand and patient skin antisepsis improved from 46.0% to 66.0% (P < .001), and timely antibiotic administration improved from 17.8% to 39.0% (P < .001). Surgical instrument (38.7% vs 10.2%), linen sterility (35.5% vs 12.8%), and gauze counting (89.2% vs 82.5%; P < .001 for all comparisons) also improved significantly. Conclusions and Relevance: A modified implementation strategy for the Clean Cut program focusing on reduced external resource and programmatic input from Lifebox, structured education and training materials, and wider hospital engagement resulted in outcomes that matched our pilot study, with improved adherence to recognized infection prevention standards resulting in a reduction in SSIs. The demonstration of scalability reinforces the value of this SSI prevention program.

Clean and Confident: Impact of Sterile Instrument Processing Workshops on Knowledge and Confidence in Five Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Background: Proper sterilization of surgical instruments is essential for safe surgery, yet re-processing methods in low-resource settings can fall short of standards. Training of Trainers (TOT) workshops in Ethiopia and El Salvador instructed participants in sterile processing concepts and prepared participants to teach others. This study examines participants' knowledge and confidence post-TOT workshop, and moreover discusses subsequent non-TOT workshops and observed sterile processing practices. Methods: Five TOT workshops were conducted between 2018 and 2020 in Ethiopia and Central America. Participant trainers then led nine non-TOT workshops in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Interactive sessions covered instrument cleaning, packaging, disinfection, sterilization, and transportation. Participants completed pre- and post-tests, demonstrated skill competencies, and shared feedback. Peri-operative sterile processing metrics were also observed in Ethiopian hospitals pre- and post-workshops. Results: Ninety-five trainees participated in TOT workshops, whereas 169 participated in non-TOT workshops. Knowledge on a 10-point scale increased substantially after all training sessions (+2.3 ± 2.8, +2.9 ± 1.7, and 2.7 ± 2.5 after Ethiopian, Central American, and non-TOT workshops, respectively; all p < 0.05). Scores on tests of sterile processing theory also increased (Ethiopian TOT, +68% ± 92%; Central American TOT, +26% ± 20%; p < 0.01). Most respondents felt "very confident" about teaching (Ethiopian TOT, 72%; Central American TOT, 83%; non-TOT, 70%), whereas fewer participants felt "very confident" enacting change (Ethiopian TOT, 36%; Central American TOT, 58%; non-TOT, 38%). Reasons included resource scarcity and inadequate support. Nonetheless, observed instrument compliance improved after Ethiopian TOT workshops (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.78; p < 0.01). Conclusions: Sterile processing workshops can improve knowledge, confidence, and sterility compliance in selected low- and middle-income countries. Training of Trainers models empower participants to adapt programs locally, enhancing sterile processing knowledge in different communities. However, national guidelines, physical and administrative resources, and long-term follow-up must improve to ensure effective sterile processing.

The impact of a sterile processing program in Northwest Tanzania: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Inadequate training of health care workers responsible for the sterilization of surgical instruments in low- and middle-income countries compromises the safety of workers and patients alike. Methods: A mixed methods research study was initiated in the Lake Zone areas of Northwestern Tanzania in the summer of 2018. The goal was to identify the impact of education and training on sterile processing practices at ten hospitals. Quantitative data analyzed included hospital assessments of sterile processing practices prior to and 4 months after training, as well as participant test scores collected at the beginning of training, after 5 days of classes, and 4 months after mentorship was completed. Thematic analysis of interviews with participants 4 months post-training was completed to identify associated impact of training. Results: Improvement in test scores were found to be directly related to sterile processing training. The greatest sterile processing practice changes identified through hospital assessments involved how instruments were cleaned, both at point of use and during the cleaning process, resulting in rusted and discoloured instruments appearing as new again. Themes identified in participant interviews included: changes in practice, challenges in implementing practice changes, resource constraints, personal and professional growth, and increased motivation, confidence and responsibility. Conclusions: Providing education and follow up support for workers in sterile processing resulted in increased knowledge of best practices, application of knowledge in practice settings, and awareness of issues that need to be overcome to decrease risks for patients and health care workers alike. Further research is needed to identify the impact of mentorship on hospital sterile processing practices in order to provide clear direction for future spending on training courses.

Surgical Instrument Reprocessing in Resource-Constrained Countries: A Scoping Review of Existing Methods, Policies, and Barriers.

BACKGROUND: Surgical infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Inadequately reprocessed surgical instruments can be a vector for pathogens. Little has been published on the current state of surgical instrument reprocessing in LMICs. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of English-language articles in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases describing current methods, policies, and barriers to surgical instrument reprocessing in LMICs. We conducted qualitative analysis of all studies to categorize existing practices and barriers to successful surgical instrument reprocessing. Barriers were non-exclusively categorized by theme: training/education, resource availability, environment, and policies/procedures. Studies associating surgical infections with existing practices were separately evaluated to assess this relationship. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-two abstracts were identified. Forty studies met criteria for qualitative analysis and three studies associated patient outcomes with surgical instrument reprocessing. Most studies (n = 28, 70%) discussed institution-specific policies/procedures; half discussed shortcomings in staff training. Sterilization (n = 38, 95%), verification of sterilization (n = 19, 48%), and instrument cleaning and decontamination (n = 16, 40%) were the most common instrument reprocessing practices examined. Poor resource availability and the lack of effective education/training and appropriate policies/procedures were cited as the common barriers. Of the case series investigating surgical instrument reprocessing with patient outcomes, improperly cleaned and sterilized neurosurgical instruments and contaminated rinse water were linked to Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventriculitis and Mycobacterium port site infections, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Large gaps exist between instrument reprocessing practices in LMICs and recommended policies/procedures. Identified areas for improvement include instrument cleaning and decontamination, sterilization aspects of instrument reprocessing, and verification of sterilization. Education and training of staff responsible for reprocessing instruments and realistic, defined policies and procedures are critical, and lend themselves to improvement interventions.

Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of a short term training program on sterile processing knowledge, practice, and attitude in three hospitals in Benin.

Background: Proper sterile processing is fundamental to safe surgical practice and optimal patient outcomes. Sterile processing practices in low and middle-income countries often fall short of recommended standards. The impact of education and training on sterile processing practices in low and middle-income countries is unknown. We designed a sterile processing education course, including mentoring, and aimed to evaluate the impact on participants' personal knowledge, skills, and practices. We also aimed to identify institutional changes in sterile processing practices at participants' work places. Methods: A mixed methods design study was conducted using a Hospital Sterile Processing Assessment Tool, knowledge tests, and open-ended interviews. Results: Education and mentoring improved how workers understood and approached their work and to what they paid attention. Sterile processing workers were also better able to identify resources available to do their work and showed improved understanding of the impact of their work on patient safety. Conclusions: Health care organizations seeking to improve surgical outcomes can find easy wins requiring minimal cost expenditures by paying attention to sterile processing practices. Investing in education and low-cost resources, such as cleaning detergents and brushes, must be part of any quality improvement initiative aimed at providing safe surgery in low and middle-income countries.

Limited sterile processing capabilities for safe surgery in low-income and middle-income countries: experience in the Republic of Congo, Madagascar and Benin.

It is highly difficult to perform safe surgery without sterile instruments, yet the capacity to adequately clean, disinfect and sterilise surgical instruments in low-income and middle-income countries is largely unknown. Sterile Processing Education Charitable Trust developed an assessment tool and, in partnership with Mercy Ships, evaluated the sterile processing capacity in 59 facilities in Madagascar, Benin and the Republic of Congo. This data-driven analysis paper illustrates how lack of sterile processing capacity acts as a barrier to safe surgical care. Our tool identified widespread lack of knowledge of techniques and resources needed for sterile processing. Only 12% of workers in Republic of Congo and Benin had sterile processing training and none in Madagascar. None of the hospitals surveyed met basic standards for cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation as defined by the WHO/Pan American Health Organization. Examples of poor practice included lack of cleaning supplies (basic brushes and detergents), incorrect drying and storage of surgical instruments, and inattention to workflow causing cross-contamination. Bleach (sodium hypochlorite) solutions, damaging to instruments, were used universally. In our experience, using an assessment tool allowed identification of specific gaps in sterile processing capacity. Many of the gaps are amenable to simple solutions requiring minimal resources and achievable by most hospitals. We recommend that stakeholders seeking to strengthen surgical health systems in low-resource settings incorporate sterile processing capacity assessments and training into their programmes.