Infection control bundles in intensive care: an international cross-sectional survey in low- and middle-income countries. Issue 3 (March 2019)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Infection control bundles in intensive care: an international cross-sectional survey in low- and middle-income countries. Issue 3 (March 2019)
- Main Title:
- Infection control bundles in intensive care: an international cross-sectional survey in low- and middle-income countries
- Authors:
- Akhvlediani, T.
Akkoyunlu, Y.
Amela, D.L.
Aqel, A.
Bagırova, F.
Carevic, B.
Candevir-Ulu, A.
Cevahir, F.
Dijk, M.V.
Dobrevska, R.
Donlan, S.
Dragovac, G.
Dobrevska, R.
Fernandez, R.
Ikram, A.
Kamal, A.M.
Karagoz, E.
Kaynar, L.
Kulzhanova, S.
Kumar, A.
McLaws, M.L.
Mema, D.
Oztoprak, N.
Pepe, F.N.
Petri, O.
Popescu, C.
Presterl, E.
Raka, L.
Resat, M.
Senol, G.
Shresta, L.B.
Sonmezer, M.Ç.
Taqıyev, B.
Tekin, R.
Tiamiyu, B.
Ulu-Kilic, A.
Vandana, K.E.
Vecchio, R.F.D.
Wongsurakıat, P.
Alp, E.
Cookson, B.
Erdem, H.
Rello, J.
… (more) - Abstract:
- Summary: Background: In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the burden of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) is not known due to a lack of national surveillance systems, standardized infection definitions, and paucity of infection prevention and control (IPC) organizations and legal infrastructure. Aim: To determine the status of IPC bundle practice and the most frequent interventional variables in LMICs. Methods: A questionnaire was emailed to Infectious Diseases International Research Initiative (ID-IRI) Group Members and dedicated IPC doctors working in LMICs to examine self-reported practices/policies regarding IPC bundles. Responding country incomes were classified by World Bank definitions into low, middle, and high. Comparison of LMIC results was then made to a control group of high-income countries (HICs). Findings: This survey reports practices from one low-income country (LIC), 16 middle-income countries (MICs) (13 European), compared to eight high-income countries (HICs). Eighteen (95%) MICs had an IPC committee in their hospital, 12 (63.2%) had an annual agreed programme and produced an HCAI report. Annual agreed programmes (87.5% vs 63.2%, respectively) and an annual HCAI report (75.0% vs 63.2%, respectively) were more common in HICs than MICs. All HICs had at least one invasive device-related surveillance programme. Seven (37%) MICs had no invasive device-related surveillance programme, six (32%) had no ventilator-associated pneumonia preventionSummary: Background: In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the burden of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) is not known due to a lack of national surveillance systems, standardized infection definitions, and paucity of infection prevention and control (IPC) organizations and legal infrastructure. Aim: To determine the status of IPC bundle practice and the most frequent interventional variables in LMICs. Methods: A questionnaire was emailed to Infectious Diseases International Research Initiative (ID-IRI) Group Members and dedicated IPC doctors working in LMICs to examine self-reported practices/policies regarding IPC bundles. Responding country incomes were classified by World Bank definitions into low, middle, and high. Comparison of LMIC results was then made to a control group of high-income countries (HICs). Findings: This survey reports practices from one low-income country (LIC), 16 middle-income countries (MICs) (13 European), compared to eight high-income countries (HICs). Eighteen (95%) MICs had an IPC committee in their hospital, 12 (63.2%) had an annual agreed programme and produced an HCAI report. Annual agreed programmes (87.5% vs 63.2%, respectively) and an annual HCAI report (75.0% vs 63.2%, respectively) were more common in HICs than MICs. All HICs had at least one invasive device-related surveillance programme. Seven (37%) MICs had no invasive device-related surveillance programme, six (32%) had no ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention bundles, seven (37%) had no catheter-associated urinary tract infection prevention bundles, and five (27%) had no central line-associated bloodstream infection prevention bundles. Conclusion: LMICs need to develop their own bundles with low-cost and high-level-of-evidence variables adapted to the limited resources, with further validation in reducing infection rates. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Journal of hospital infection. Volume 101:Issue 3(2019)
- Journal:
- Journal of hospital infection
- Issue:
- Volume 101:Issue 3(2019)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 101, Issue 3 (2019)
- Year:
- 2019
- Volume:
- 101
- Issue:
- 3
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2019-0101-0003-0000
- Page Start:
- 248
- Page End:
- 256
- Publication Date:
- 2019-03
- Subjects:
- Infection control -- Bundles -- Low and middle income -- Healthcare-associated infection -- Prevention -- Ventilator-associated pneumonia
Cross infection -- Periodicals
Cross infection -- Prevention -- Periodicals
Nosocomial infections -- Periodicals
Nosocomial infections -- Prevention -- Periodicals
Cross Infection -- Periodicals
Cross Infection -- prevention & control -- Periodicals
Infection Control -- Periodicals
Electronic journals
614.44 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.harcourt-international.com/journals ↗
http://www.clinicalkey.com/dura/browse/journalIssue/01956701 ↗
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01956701 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.jhin.2018.07.022 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0195-6701
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 5003.285000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 10409.xml