The impact of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) multicenter, multidimensional hand hygiene approach in two cities of India.

The fundamental tool for preventing and controlling healthcare-acquired infections is hand hygiene (HH). Nonetheless, adherence to HH guidelines is often low. Our goal was to assess the effect of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) Multidimensional Hand Hygiene Approach (IMHHA) in three intensive care units of three INICC member hospitals in two cities of India and to analyze the predictors of compliance with HH. From August 2004 to July 2011, we carried out an observational, prospective, interventional study to evaluate the implementation of the IMHHA, which included the following elements: (1) administrative support, (2) supplies availability, (3) education and training, (4) reminders in the workplace, (5) process surveillance and (6) performance feedback. The practices of health care workers were monitored during randomly selected 30-min periods. We observed 3612 opportunities for HH. Overall adherence to HH increased from 36.9% to 82% (95% CI 79.3-84.5; P=0.0001). Multivariate analysis indicated that certain variables were significantly associated with poor HH adherence: nurses vs. physicians (70.5% vs. 74%; 95% CI 0.62-0.96; P=0.018), ancillary staff vs. physicians (43.6% vs. 74.0%; 95% CI 0.48-0.72; P<0.001), ancillary staff vs. nurses (43.6% vs. 70.5%; 95% CI 0.51-0.75; P<0.001) and private vs. academic hospitals (74.2% vs. 66.3%; 95% CI 0.83-0.97; P<0.001). It is worth noticing that in India, the HH compliance of physicians is higher than in nurses. Adherence to HH was significantly increased by implementing the IMHHA. Programs targeted at improving HH are warranted to identify predictors of poor compliance.

Surgical site infection rates in six cities of India: findings of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC).

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections are a threat to patient safety. However, in India, data on their rates stratified by surgical procedure are not available. METHODS: From January 2005 to December 2011, the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) conducted a cohort prospective surveillance study on surgical site infections in 10 hospitals in 6 Indian cities. CDC National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC-NHSN) methods were applied and surgical procedures were classified into 11 types, according to the ninth edition of the International Classification of Diseases. RESULTS: We documented 1189 surgical site infections, associated with 28 340 surgical procedures (4.2%; 95% CI: 4.0-4.4). Surgical site infections rates were compared with INICC and CDC-NHSN reports, respectively: 4.3% for coronary bypass with chest and donor incision (4.5% vs 2.9%); 8.3% for breast surgery (1.7% vs 2.3%); 6.5% for cardiac surgery (5.6% vs 1.3%); 6.0% for exploratory abdominal surgery (4.1% vs 2.0%), among others. CONCLUSIONS: In most types of surgical procedures, surgical site infections rates were higher than those reported by the CDC-NHSN, but similar to INICC. This study is an important advancement towards the knowledge of surgical site infections epidemiology in the participating Indian hospitals that will allow us to introduce targeted interventions.