Jean Jacques Irakiza, Christian Mazimpaka, Dieudonne Ndatimana, John Baptist Kalach, Vincent Hatangimbabazi, Edouard Kamuhangire, Alphonsine Mukamunana, Olive Ntakirutimana, Joseline Tengera, Olivier Ruhumuriza, Onesime Manishimwe, A. Mwali, E. Rutayisire
{"title":"卢旺达 25 家医疗机构的感染预防与控制计划现状:世界卫生组织感染预防与控制评估框架的结果","authors":"Jean Jacques Irakiza, Christian Mazimpaka, Dieudonne Ndatimana, John Baptist Kalach, Vincent Hatangimbabazi, Edouard Kamuhangire, Alphonsine Mukamunana, Olive Ntakirutimana, Joseline Tengera, Olivier Ruhumuriza, Onesime Manishimwe, A. Mwali, E. Rutayisire","doi":"10.1002/puh2.183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Infection prevention and control (IPC) is important in ensuring patient safety, protecting healthcare workers, and reducing healthcare‐associated costs. The World Health Organization (WHO)‐validated Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) was used to evaluate IPC practices in Rwandan healthcare facilities.In this cross‐sectional study, we assessed 25 health facilities across Rwanda, including district and referral hospitals. Using the IPCAF tool, we assessed eight core components (CCs) of IPC programs. We calculated median scores and interquartile ranges to determine the levels of implementation of IPC practices.Among the 25 facilities, all showed some degree of IPCAF implementation, with an overall median IPCAF score of 545.0, reflecting an intermediate level. Three facilities (12%) were at a basic level, 16 (64%) at an intermediate level, and 6 (24%) at an advanced level of IPC practices. The presence of IPC guidelines scored the highest among CCs (median: 87.5). About 96% of facilities did not have a dedicated full‐time IPC staff, 64% of facilities did not offer IPC training to new staff, and 84% did not have protocols for multidrug‐resistant pathogens.This initial IPCAF assessment in Rwanda reveals critical IPC strengths and gaps. These findings highlight the necessity for targeted interventions, such as appointing dedicated IPC staff, strengthening IPC committees, and enhancing IPC training and resources.","PeriodicalId":74613,"journal":{"name":"Public health challenges","volume":"31 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Status of infection prevention and control programs in 25 facilities of Rwanda: Results from the WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework\",\"authors\":\"Jean Jacques Irakiza, Christian Mazimpaka, Dieudonne Ndatimana, John Baptist Kalach, Vincent Hatangimbabazi, Edouard Kamuhangire, Alphonsine Mukamunana, Olive Ntakirutimana, Joseline Tengera, Olivier Ruhumuriza, Onesime Manishimwe, A. Mwali, E. Rutayisire\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/puh2.183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Infection prevention and control (IPC) is important in ensuring patient safety, protecting healthcare workers, and reducing healthcare‐associated costs. The World Health Organization (WHO)‐validated Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) was used to evaluate IPC practices in Rwandan healthcare facilities.In this cross‐sectional study, we assessed 25 health facilities across Rwanda, including district and referral hospitals. Using the IPCAF tool, we assessed eight core components (CCs) of IPC programs. We calculated median scores and interquartile ranges to determine the levels of implementation of IPC practices.Among the 25 facilities, all showed some degree of IPCAF implementation, with an overall median IPCAF score of 545.0, reflecting an intermediate level. Three facilities (12%) were at a basic level, 16 (64%) at an intermediate level, and 6 (24%) at an advanced level of IPC practices. The presence of IPC guidelines scored the highest among CCs (median: 87.5). About 96% of facilities did not have a dedicated full‐time IPC staff, 64% of facilities did not offer IPC training to new staff, and 84% did not have protocols for multidrug‐resistant pathogens.This initial IPCAF assessment in Rwanda reveals critical IPC strengths and gaps. These findings highlight the necessity for targeted interventions, such as appointing dedicated IPC staff, strengthening IPC committees, and enhancing IPC training and resources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public health challenges\",\"volume\":\"31 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public health challenges\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/puh2.183\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public health challenges","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/puh2.183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Status of infection prevention and control programs in 25 facilities of Rwanda: Results from the WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework
Infection prevention and control (IPC) is important in ensuring patient safety, protecting healthcare workers, and reducing healthcare‐associated costs. The World Health Organization (WHO)‐validated Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) was used to evaluate IPC practices in Rwandan healthcare facilities.In this cross‐sectional study, we assessed 25 health facilities across Rwanda, including district and referral hospitals. Using the IPCAF tool, we assessed eight core components (CCs) of IPC programs. We calculated median scores and interquartile ranges to determine the levels of implementation of IPC practices.Among the 25 facilities, all showed some degree of IPCAF implementation, with an overall median IPCAF score of 545.0, reflecting an intermediate level. Three facilities (12%) were at a basic level, 16 (64%) at an intermediate level, and 6 (24%) at an advanced level of IPC practices. The presence of IPC guidelines scored the highest among CCs (median: 87.5). About 96% of facilities did not have a dedicated full‐time IPC staff, 64% of facilities did not offer IPC training to new staff, and 84% did not have protocols for multidrug‐resistant pathogens.This initial IPCAF assessment in Rwanda reveals critical IPC strengths and gaps. These findings highlight the necessity for targeted interventions, such as appointing dedicated IPC staff, strengthening IPC committees, and enhancing IPC training and resources.