Search

Additional file 4.

Additional file 2.

Additional file 3.

Additional file 1.

Additional file 1.

Additional file 5.

Background: Improved Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) in Healthcare facilities (HCFs) is of significant public health importance. It is associated with a reduction in the transmission of healthcare acquired infections (HAIs), increased trust and uptake of healthcare services, cost saving from infections averted, increased efficiency and improved staff morale. Despite these benefits, there is limited evidence on availability of WASH services in HCFs in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA). This study assessed the availability of WASH services within HCFs in the GKMA in order to inform policy and WASH programming.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 60 HCFs. Availability of WASH services in the study HCFs was assessed using a validated WASH Conditions (WASHCon) tool comprising of structured interviews, HCF observations and microbial water quality analysis. Data were analysed using Stata 14 software and R software. Results: Overall, 84.5% (49/58) and 12.1% (7/58) of HCFs had limited and basic WASH service respectively. About 48.3% (28/58) had limited water service, 84.5% (49/58) had limited sanitation service, 50.0% (29/58) had limited environmental cleanliness service, 56.9% (33/58) had limited hand hygiene service, and 51.7% (30/58) had limited waste management service. About 94.4% of public HCFs had limited WASH service compared to only 68.2% of private not for profit facilities. More health centre IIIs, 92.5% and health centre IVs (85.7%) had limited WASH service compared to hospitals (54.5%).Conclusions: Our findings indicate that provision of water, sanitation, hand hygiene, environmental cleanliness, and health care waste management services within HCFs are largely hindered by structural and performance limitations. In spite of these limitations, it is evident that environmental cleanliness and treatment of infectious waste can be attained with better oversight and dedicated personnel. Attaining universal WASH coverage in HCFs will require deliberate and strategic investments across the different domains.

Background: Improved Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services in Health Care Facilities (HCFs) is of significant public health importance. It is associated with a reduction in the transmission of hospital acquired infections (HAIs), increased trust and uptake of healthcare services, cost saving from infections averted, increased efficiency and improved staff morale. Despite these benefits, there is limited evidence on the status of WASH in HCFs in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA). This study assessed the status of WASH within HCFs in the GKMA in order to inform policy and WASH programming.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 60 HCFs. The status of WASH in the study facilities was assessed using a validated WASH Conditions (WASHCon) tool comprising of structured interviews, HCF observations and microbial water quality analysis. Data were analysed using Stata 14 software and R software. The relationships between WASH status and HCF characteristics were assessed using Fishers’ exact tests.Results: Overall, 84.5% (49/58) and 12.1% (7/58) of HCFs had limited and basic WASH status respectively. About 48.3% (28/58) had a limited water supply status, 84.5% (49/58) had limited sanitation status, 50.0% (29/58) had limited environmental cleanliness status, 56.9% (33/58) had limited hand hygiene status and 51.7% (30/58) had limited waste management status. Overall, there were significant differences in water supply status by ownership of the HCF and level of HCF. There was a significant statistical difference in WASH status between public and private not for profit facilities (p = 0.021). A significant difference was also observed in WASH status between hospitals and lower levels HCFs (p = 0.004). Conclusion: Majority of the HCFs in the GKMA had limited access to all WASH service domains i.e. water supply, sanitation, hand hygiene, environmental cleanliness and healthcare waste management. We recommend deliberate increased investments in WASH for healthcare services, especially for sanitation and hand hygiene provisions which were in the poorest state. Improvements in WASH conditions will not only minimize the risk of transmission of HAIs but also associated costs.

Additional file 1. Definitions of WASH status indicators (domains)

In crowded urban settlements in low-income countries, many households rely on shared sanitation facilities. Shared facilities are not currently considered “improved sanitation” because of concerns about whether hygiene conditions sufficiently protect users from the feces of others. Prevention of fecal exposure at a latrine is only one aspect of sanitary safety. Ensuring consistent use of latrines for feces disposal, especially child feces, is required to reduce fecal contamination in households and communities. Household crowding and shared latrine access are correlated in these settings, rendering latrine use by neighbors sharing communal living areas as critically important for protecting one’s own household. This study in Accra, Ghana, found that household access to a within-compound basic latrine was associated with higher latrine use by children of ages 5–12 years and for disposal of feces of children < 5 years, compared with households using public latrines. However, within-compound access was not associated with improved child feces disposal by other caregivers in the compound. Feces was rarely observed in household compounds but was observed more often in compounds with latrines versus compounds relying on public latrines. Escherichia coli and human adenovirus were detected frequently on household surfaces, but concentrations did not differ when compared by latrine access or usage practices. The differences in latrine use for households sharing within-compound versus public latrines in Accra suggest that disaggregated shared sanitation categories may be useful in monitoring global progress in sanitation coverage. However, compound access did not completely ensure that households were protected from feces and microbial contamination.

Rapid urbanization has contributed to an urban sanitation crisis in low-income countries. Residents in low-income, urban neighborhoods often have poor sanitation infrastructure and services and may experience frequent exposure to fecal contamination through a range of pathways. There are little data to prioritize strategies to decrease exposure to fecal contamination in these complex and highly contaminated environments, and public health priorities are rarely considered when planning urban sanitation investments. The SaniPath Study addresses this need by characterizing pathways of exposure to fecal contamination. Over a 16 month period, an in-depth, interdisciplinary exposure assessment was conducted in both public and private domains of four neighborhoods in Accra, Ghana. Microbiological analyses of environmental samples and behavioral data collection techniques were used to quantify fecal contamination in the environment and characterize the behaviors of adults and children associated with exposure to fecal contamination. Environmental samples (n = 1,855) were collected and analyzed for fecal indicators and enteric pathogens. A household survey with 800 respondents and over 500 hours of structured observation of young children were conducted. Approximately 25% of environmental samples were collected in conjunction with structured observations (n = 441 samples). The results of the study highlight widespread and often high levels of fecal contamination in both public and private domains and the food supply. The dominant fecal exposure pathway for young children in the household was through consumption of uncooked produce. The SaniPath Study provides critical information on exposure to fecal contamination in low-income, urban environments and ultimately can inform investments and policies to reduce these public health risks.

Exposure to fecal contamination in public areas, especially in dense, urban environments, may significantly contribute to enteric infection risk. This study examined associations between sanitation and fecal contamination in public environments in four low-income neighborhoods in Accra, Ghana. Soil (n = 72) and open drain (n = 90) samples were tested for E. coli, adenovirus, and norovirus. Sanitation facilities in surveyed households (n = 793) were categorized by onsite fecal sludge containment ("contained" vs. "uncontained") using previous Joint Monitoring Program infrastructure guidelines. Most sanitation facilities were shared by multiple households. Associations between spatial clustering of household sanitation coverage and fecal contamination were examined, controlling for neighborhood and population density (measured as enumeration areas in the 2010 census and spatially matched to sample locations). E. coli concentrations in drains within 50m of clusters of contained household sanitation were more than 3 log-units lower than those outside of clusters. Further, although results were not always statistically significant, E. coli concentrations in drains showed consistent trends with household sanitation coverage clusters: concentrations were lower in or near clusters of high coverage of household sanitation facilities-especially contained facilities-and vice versa. Virus detection in drains and E. coli concentrations in soil were not significantly associated with clustering of any type of household sanitation and did not exhibit consistent trends. Population density alone was not significantly associated with any of the fecal contamination outcomes by itself and was a significant, yet inconsistent, effect modifier of the association between sanitation clusters and E. coli concentrations. These findings suggest clustering of contained household sanitation, even when shared, may be associated with lower levels of fecal contamination within drains in the immediate public domain. Further research is needed to better quantify these relationships and examine impacts on health.

To inform the development of global wastewater monitoring systems, we surveyed programmes in 43 countries. Most programmes monitored predominantly urban populations. In high-income countries (HICs), composite sampling at centralised treatment plants was most common, whereas grab sampling from surface waters, open drains, and pit latrines was more typical in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Almost all programmes analysed samples in-country, with an average processing time of 2·3 days in HICs and 4·5 days in LMICs. Whereas 59% of HICs regularly monitored wastewater for SARS-CoV-2 variants, only 13% of LMICs did so. Most programmes share their wastewater data internally, with partnering organisations, but not publicly. Our findings show the richness of the existing wastewater monitoring ecosystem. With additional leadership, funding, and implementation frameworks, thousands of individual wastewater initiatives can coalesce into an integrated, sustainable network for disease surveillance—one that minimises the risk of overlooking future global health threats.