Search

Almost 9 million health-care-associated infections have been estimated to occur each year in European hospitals and long-term care facilities, and these lead to an increase in morbidity, mortality, bed occupancy, and duration of hospital stay. The aim of this systematic review was to review the cost-effectiveness of interventions to limit the spread of health-care-associated infections), framed by WHO infection prevention and control core components. The Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Cinahl, Scopus, Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation, and Global Index Medicus databases, plus grey literature were searched for studies between Jan 1, 2009, and Aug 10, 2022. Studies were included if they reported interventions including hand hygiene, personal protective equipment, national-level or facility-level infection prevention and control programmes, education and training programmes, environmental cleaning, and surveillance. The British Medical Journal checklist was used to assess the quality of economic evaluations. 67 studies were included in the review. 25 studies evaluated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outcomes. 31 studies evaluated screening strategies. The assessed studies that met the minimum quality criteria consisted of economic models. There was some evidence that hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, surveillance, and multimodal interventions were cost-effective. There were few or no studies investigating education and training, personal protective equipment or monitoring, and evaluation of interventions. This Review provides a map of cost-effectiveness data, so that policy makers and researchers can identify the relevant data and then assess the quality and generalisability for their setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests This systematic review was funded by WHO and Newcastle University. All authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hand hygiene is at the core of effective infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes. 10 years after the development of the WHO Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy, we aimed to ascertain the level of hand hygiene implementation and its drivers in health-care facilities through a global WHO survey., Methods: From Jan 16 to Dec 31, 2019, IPC professionals were invited through email and campaigns to complete the online Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework (HHSAF). A geospatial clustering algorithm selected unique health-care facilities responses and post-stratification weighting was applied to improve representativeness. Weighted median HHSAF scores and IQR were reported. Drivers of the HHSAF score were determined through a generalised estimation equation., Findings: 3206 unique responses from 90 countries (46% WHO Member States) were included. The HHSAF score indicated an intermediate hand hygiene implementation level (350 points, IQR 248-430), which was positively associated with country income level and health-care facility funding structure. System Change had the highest score (85 points, IQR 55-100), whereby alcohol-based hand rub at the point of care has become standard practice in many health-care facilities, especially in high-income countries. Institutional Safety Climate had the lowest score (55 points, IQR 35-75). From 2015 to 2019, the median HHSAF score in health-care facilities participating in both HHSAF surveys (n=190) stagnated., Interpretation: Most health-care facilities had an intermediate level of hand hygiene implementation or higher, for which health-care facility funding and country income level were important drivers. Availability of resources, leadership, and organisational support are key elements to further improve quality of care and provide access to safe care for all., Funding: WHO, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, and WHO Collaborating Center on Patient Safety, Geneva, Switzerland., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors declare no competing interests., (© 2022 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier. This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.)

Background: WHO core components for infection prevention and control (IPC) are important building blocks for effective IPC programmes. To our knowledge, we did the first WHO global survey to assess implementation of these programmes in health-care facilities., Methods: In this cross-sectional survey, IPC professionals were invited through global outreach and national coordinated efforts to complete the online WHO IPC assessment framework (IPCAF). The survey was created in English and was then translated into ten languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, and Thai. Post-stratification weighting was applied and countries with low response rates were excluded to improve representativeness. Weighted median scores and IQRs as well as weighted proportions (Nw) meeting defined IPCAF minimum requirements were reported. Indicators associated with the IPCAF score were assessed using a generalised estimating equation., Findings: From Jan 16 to Dec 31, 2019, 4440 responses were received from 81 countries. The overall weighted IPCAF median score indicated an advanced level of implementation (605, IQR 450·4-705·0), but significantly lower scores were found in low-income (385, 279·7-442·9) and lower-middle-income countries (500·4, 345·0-657·5), and public facilities (515, 385-637·8). Core component 8 (built environment; 90·0, IQR 75·0-100·0) and core component 2 (guidelines; 87·5, 70·0-97·5) scored the highest, and core component 7 (workload, staffing, and bed occupancy; 70·0, 50-90) and core component 3 (education and training; 70 ·0, 50·0-85·0) scored the lowest. Overall, only 15·2% (Nw: 588 of 3873) of facilities met all IPCAF minimum requirements, ranging from 0% (0 of 417) in low-income countries to 25·6% (278 of 1087) in primary facilities, 9% (24 of 268) in secondary facilities, and 19% (18 of 95) in tertiary facilities in high-income countries., Interpretation: Despite an overall high IPCAF score globally, important gaps in IPC facility implementation and core components across income levels hinder IPC progress. Increased support for more effective and sustainable IPC programmes is crucial to reduce risks posed by outbreaks to global health security and to ensure patient and health worker safety., Funding: WHO and the Infection Control Programme, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine., Translations: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (© 2022 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier. This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.)

Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently continued for 1 day or more after surgery to prevent surgical site infection. Continuing antibiotic prophylaxis after an operation might have no advantage compared with its immediate discontinuation, and it unnecessarily exposes patients to risks associated with antibiotic use. In 2016, WHO recommended discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis after surgery. We aimed to update the evidence that formed the basis for that recommendation., Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and WHO regional medical databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis that were published from Jan 1, 1990, to July 24, 2018. RCTs comparing the effect of postoperative continuation versus discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of surgical site infection in patients undergoing any surgical procedure with an indication for antibiotic prophylaxis were eligible. The primary outcome was the effect of postoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis continuation versus its immediate discontinuation on the occurrence of surgical site infection, with a prespecified subgroup analysis for studies that did and did not adhere to current best practice standards for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. We calculated summary relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). We evaluated heterogeneity with the χ 2 test, I 2 , and τ 2 , and visually assesed publication bias with a contour-enhanced funnel plot. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42017060829., Findings: We identified 83 relevant RCTs, of which 52 RCTs with 19 273 participants were included in the primary meta-analysis. The pooled RR of surgical site infection with postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis versus its immediate discontinuation was 0·89 (95% CI 0·79-1·00), with low heterogeneity in effect size between studies (τ 2 =0·001, χ 2 p=0·46, I 2 =0·7%). Our prespecified subgroup analysis showed a significant association between the effect estimate and adherence to best practice standards of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: the RR of surgical site infection was reduced with continued antibiotic prophylaxis after surgery compared with its immediate discontinuation in trials that did not meet best practice standards (0·79 [95% CI 0·67-0·94]) but not in trials that did (1·04 [0·85-1·27]; p=0·048). Whether studies adhered to best practice standards explained all variance in the pooled estimate from the primary meta-analysis., Interpretation: Overall, we identified no conclusive evidence for a benefit of postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis over its discontinuation. When best practice standards were followed, postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis did not yield any additional benefit in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection. These findings support WHO recommendations against this practice., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2020 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Evidence-based guidance for national infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes is needed to support national and global capacity building to reduce health-care-associated infection and antimicrobial resistance. In this systematic review we investigate evidence on the effectiveness of IPC interventions implemented at national or subnational levels to inform the development of WHO guidelines on the core components of national IPC programmes. We searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and WHO IRIS databases for publications between Jan 1, 2000, and April 19, 2017. 29 studies that met the eligibility criteria (ie, economic evaluations, cluster-randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time-series studies exploring the effective of these interventions) were categorised according to intervention type: multimodal, care bundles, policies, and surveillance, monitoring, and feedback. Evidence of effectiveness was found in all categories but the best quality evidence was on multimodal interventions and surveillance, monitoring, and feedback. We call for improvements in study design, reporting of research, and quality of evidence particularly from low-income countries, to strengthen the uptake and international relevance of IPC interventions., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most frequent health-care-associated infections in developing countries. Specific prevention measures are highly effective, but are often poorly implemented. We aimed to establish the effect of a multimodal intervention on SSIs in Africa., Methods: We did a before-after cohort study, between July 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2015, at five African hospitals. The multimodal intervention consisted of the implementation or strengthening of multiple SSI prevention measures, combined with an adaptive approach aimed at the improvement of teamwork and the safety climate. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of SSI, and the secondary outcome was death within 30 days post surgery. Data on adherence to SSI prevention measures were prospectively collected. The intervention effect on SSI risk and death within 30 days post surgery was assessed in a mixed-effects logistic regression model, after adjustment for key confounders., Findings: Four hospitals completed the baseline and follow-up; three provided suitable (ie, sufficient number and quality) data for the sustainability period. 4322 operations were followed up (1604 at baseline, 1827 at follow-up, and 891 in the sustainability period). SSI cumulative incidence significantly decreased post intervention, from 8·0% (95% CI 6·8-9·5; n=129) to 3·8% (3·0-4·8; n=70; p<0·0001), and this decrease persisted in the sustainability period (3·9%, 2·8-5·4; n=35). A substantial improvement in compliance with prevention measures was consistently observed in the follow-up and sustainability periods. The likelihood of SSI during follow-up was significantly lower than pre-intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·29-0·54; p<0·0001), but the likelihood of death was not significantly reduced (0·72, 0·42-1·24; p=0·2360)., Interpretation: Implementation of our intervention is feasible in African hospitals. Improvement was observed across all perioperative prevention practices. A significant effect on the overall SSI risk was observed, but with some heterogeneity between sites. Further large-scale experimental studies are needed to confirm these results and to improve the sustainability and long-term effect of such complex programmes., Funding: US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, WHO., (Copyright © 2018 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd/Inc/BV. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of the operating room's ventilation system in the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) is widely discussed, and existing guidelines do not reflect current evidence. In this context, laminar airflow ventilation was compared with conventional ventilation to assess their effectiveness in reducing the risk of SSIs., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and WHO regional medical databases from Jan 1, 1990, to Jan 31, 2014. We updated the search for MEDLINE for the period between Feb 1, 2014, and May 25, 2016. We included studies most relevant to our predefined question: is the use of laminar airflow in the operating room associated with the reduction of overall or deep SSI as outcomes in patients of any age undergoing surgical operations? We excluded studies not relevant to the study question, studies not in the selected languages, studies published before Jan 1, 1990, or after May 25, 2016, meeting or conference abstracts, and studies of which the full text was not available. Data were extracted by two independent investigators, with disagreements resolved through further discussion. Authors were contacted if the full-text article was not available, or if important data or information on the paper's content was absent. Studies were assessed for publication bias. Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation was used to assess the quality of the identified evidence. Meta-analyses were done with RevMan (version 5.3)., Findings: We identified 1947 records of which 12 observational studies were comparing laminar airflow ventilation with conventional turbulent ventilation in orthopaedic, abdominal, and vascular surgery. The meta-analysis of eight cohort studies showed no difference in risk for deep SSIs following total hip arthroplasty (330 146 procedures, odds ratio [OR] 1·29, 95% CI 0·98-1·71; p=0·07, I 2 =83%). For total knee arthroplasty, the meta-analysis of six cohort studies showed no difference in risk for deep SSIs (134 368 procedures, OR 1·08, 95% CI 0·77-1·52; p=0·65, I 2 =71%). For abdominal and open vascular surgery, the meta-analysis of three cohort studies found no difference in risk for overall SSIs (63 472 procedures, OR 0·75, 95% CI 0·43-1·33; p=0·33, I 2 =95%)., Interpretation: The available evidence shows no benefit for laminar airflow compared with conventional turbulent ventilation of the operating room in reducing the risk of SSIs in total hip and knee arthroplasties, and abdominal surgery. Decision makers, medical and administrative, should not regard laminar airflow as a preventive measure to reduce the risk of SSIs. Consequently, this equipment should not be installed in new operating rooms., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common health-care-associated infections in developing countries, but they also represent a substantial epidemiological burden in high-income countries. The prevention of these infections is complex and requires the integration of a range of preventive measures before, during, and after surgery. No international guidelines are available and inconsistencies in the interpretation of evidence and recommendations in national guidelines have been identified. Considering the prevention of SSIs as a priority for patient safety, WHO has developed evidence-based and expert consensus-based recommendations on the basis of an extensive list of preventive measures. We present in this Review 16 recommendations specific to the intraoperative and postoperative periods. The WHO recommendations were developed with a global perspective and they take into account the balance between benefits and harms, the evidence quality level, cost and resource use implications, and patient values and preferences., (Copyright © 2016 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd/Inc/BV. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most preventable health-care-associated infections and are a substantial burden to health-care systems and service payers worldwide in terms of patient morbidity, mortality, and additional costs. SSI prevention is complex and requires the integration of a range of measures before, during, and after surgery. No international guidelines are available and inconsistencies in the interpretation of evidence and recommendations of national guidelines have been identified. Given the burden of SSIs worldwide, the numerous gaps in evidence-based guidance, and the need for standardisation and a global approach, WHO decided to prioritise the development of evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSIs. The guidelines take into account the balance between benefits and harms, the evidence quality, cost and resource use implications, and patient values and preferences. On the basis of systematic literature reviews and expert consensus, we present 13 recommendations on preoperative preventive measures., (Copyright © 2016 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd/Inc/BV. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Despite control efforts, the burden of health-care-associated infections in Europe is high and leads to around 37,000 deaths each year. We did a systematic review to identify crucial elements for the organisation of effective infection-prevention programmes in hospitals and key components for implementation of monitoring. 92 studies published from 1996 to 2012 were assessed and ten key components identified: organisation of infection control at the hospital level; bed occupancy, staffing, workload, and employment of pool or agency nurses; availability of and ease of access to materials and equipment and optimum ergonomics; appropriate use of guidelines; education and training; auditing; surveillance and feedback; multimodal and multidisciplinary prevention programmes that include behavioural change; engagement of champions; and positive organisational culture. These components comprise manageable and widely applicable ways to reduce health-care-associated infections and improve patients' safety., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Health-care-associated infections are a major threat to patient safety worldwide. Transmission is mainly via the hands of health-care workers, but compliance with recommendations is usually low and effective improvement strategies are needed. We assessed the effect of WHO's strategy for improvement of hand hygiene in five countries., Methods: We did a quasi-experimental study between December, 2006, and December, 2008, at six pilot sites (55 departments in 43 hospitals) in Costa Rica, Italy, Mali, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. A step-wise approach in four 3-6 month phases was used to implement WHO's strategy and we assessed the hand-hygiene compliance of health-care workers and their knowledge, by questionnaire, of microbial transmission and hand-hygiene principles. We expressed compliance as the proportion of predefined opportunities met by hand-hygiene actions (ie, handwashing or hand rubbing). We assessed long-term sustainability of core strategy activities in April, 2010., Findings: We noted 21,884 hand-hygiene opportunities during 1423 sessions before the intervention and 23,746 opportunities during 1784 sessions after. Overall compliance increased from 51.0% before the intervention (95% CI 45.1-56.9) to 67.2% after (61.8-72.2). Compliance was independently associated with gross national income per head, with a greater effect of the intervention in low-income and middle-income countries (odds ratio [OR] 4.67, 95% CI 3.16-6.89; p<0.0001) than in high-income countries (2.19, 2.03-2.37; p<0.0001). Implementation had a major effect on compliance of health-care workers across all sites after adjustment for main confounders (OR 2.15, 1.99-2.32). Health-care-workers' knowledge improved at all sites with an increase in the average score from 18.7 (95% CI 17.8-19.7) to 24.7 (23.7-25.6) after educational sessions. 2 years after the intervention, all sites reported ongoing hand-hygiene activities with sustained or further improvement, including national scale-up., Interpretation: Implementation of WHO's hand-hygiene strategy is feasible and sustainable across a range of settings in different countries and leads to significant compliance and knowledge improvement in health-care workers, supporting recommendation for use worldwide., Funding: WHO, University of Geneva Hospitals, the Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Society of Public Health Administration and Hospital Pharmacists., (Copyright © 2013 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd/Inc/BV. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Hand cleansing is the primary action to reduce health-care-associated infection and cross-transmission of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. Patient-to-patient transmission of pathogens via health-care workers' hands requires five sequential steps: (1) organisms are present on the patient's skin or have been shed onto fomites in the patient's immediate environment; (2) organisms must be transferred to health-care workers' hands; (3) organisms must be capable of surviving on health-care workers' hands for at least several minutes; (4) handwashing or hand antisepsis by the health-care worker must be inadequate or omitted entirely, or the agent used for hand hygiene inappropriate; and (5) the caregiver's contaminated hand(s) must come into direct contact with another patient or with a fomite in direct contact with the patient. We review the evidence supporting each of these steps and propose a dynamic model for hand hygiene research and education strategies, together with corresponding indications for hand hygiene during patient care.

Health-care-associated infection (HAI) is a major issue of patient safety with a substantial impact on morbidity, mortality, and use of additional resources worldwide. In April 2004, the WHO Regional Office for Europe organised the first international consultation to address the issue of HAI in eastern and central Europe. The main objectives of the consultation were to identify the primary needs and obstacles for the prevention and control of HAI at country level, to design the essential components of an international strategy to effectively address the issue of HAI, and to identify specific priorities and recommendations for interventions by the WHO and other international institutions. An update on HAI activities and related networks throughout Europe, together with the outcome of the meeting, are presented, with special emphasis on future considerations for a European WHO strategy on HAI prevention.