Infection Prevention in the Hospital from Past to Present: Evolving Roles and Shifting Priorities

Cross-site collaboration on infection prevention and control research—room for improvement? A 7-year comparative study in five European countries

Background

The spread of SARS-CoV-2, multidrug-resistant organisms and other healthcare-associated pathogens represents supra-regional challenges for infection prevention and control (IPC) specialists in every European country. To tackle these problems, cross-site research collaboration of IPC specialists is very important. This study assesses the extent and quality of national research collaborations of IPC departments of university hospitals located in Austria, England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, identifies network gaps, and provides potential solutions.

Methods

Joint publications of IPC heads of all university hospitals of the included countries between 1st of June 2013 until 31st of May 2020 were collected by Pubmed/Medline search. Further, two factors, the journal impact factor and the type/position of authorship, were used to calculate the Scientific Collaboration Impact (SCI) for all included sites; nationwide network analysis was performed.

Results

In five European countries, 95 sites and 125 responsible leaders for IPC who had been in charge during the study period were identified. Some countries such as Austria have only limited national research cooperations, while the Netherlands has established a gapless network. Most effective collaborating university site of each country were Lille with an SCI of 1146, Rotterdam (408), Berlin (268), Sussex (204), and Vienna/Innsbruck (18).

Discussion

The present study indicates major differences and room for improvement in IPC research collaborations within each country and underlines the potential and importance of collaborating in IPC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-022-01176-x.

The utility and sustainability of US Ebola treatment centers during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

OBJECTIVE

In response to the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designated 56 US hospitals as Ebola treatment centers (ETCs) with high-level isolation capabilities. We sought to determine the ongoing sustainability of ETCs and to identify how ETC capabilities have affected hospital, local, and regional coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) readiness and response.

DESIGN

An electronic survey included both qualitative and quantitative questions and was structured into 2 sections: operational sustainability and role in the COVID-19 response.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The survey was distributed to site representatives from the 56 originally designated ETCs, and 37 (66%) responded.

METHODS

Data were coded and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 37 responding ETCs, 33 (89%) reported that they were still operating, and 4 had decommissioned. ETCs that maintain high-level isolation capabilities incurred a mean of $234,367 in expenses per year. All but 1 ETC reported that existing capabilities (eg, trained staff, infrastructure) before COVID-19 positively affected their hospital, local, and regional COVID-19 readiness and response (eg, ETC trained staff, donated supplies, and shared developed protocols).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing high-level isolation capabilities and expertise developed following the 2014-2016 EVD epidemic were leveraged by ETCs to assist hospital-wide readiness for COVID-19 and to support responses by other local and regional hospitals However, ETCs face continued challenges in sustaining those capabilities for high-consequence infectious diseases.

Emergency preparedness: What is the future?

Emergency preparedness programs have evolved over the last several decades as communities have responded to natural, intentional, and accidental disasters. This evolution has resulted in a comprehensive all-hazards approach centered around 4 fundamental phases spanning the entire disaster life cycle: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Increasing frequency of outbreaks and epidemics of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases in the last decade has emphasized the significance of healthcare emergency preparedness programs, but the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has tested healthcare facilities’ emergency plans and exposed vulnerabilities in healthcare emergency preparedness on a scale unexperienced in recent history. We review the 4 phases of emergency management and explore the lessons to be learned from recent events in enhancing health systems capabilities and capacities to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from biological threats or events, whether it be a pandemic or a single case of an unknown infectious disease. A recurring cycle of assessing, planning, training, exercising, and revising is vital to maintaining healthcare system preparedness, even in absence of an immediate, high probability threat. Healthcare epidemiologists and infection preventionists must play a pivotal role in incorporating lessons learned from the pandemic into emergency preparedness programs and building more robust preparedness plans.

Strategies for Effective Infection Prevention Programs: Structures, Processes, and Funding

Successful Infection Prevention Programs (IPPs) consist of a multidisciplinary team led by a hospital epidemiologist and managed by infection preventionists. Knowledge of the economics of health care-associated infections (HAIs) and the ability to make a business plan is now essential to the success of programs. Prevention of HAIs is the core function of IPPs with impact on patient outcomes, quality of care, and cost savings for hospitals. This article discusses the structure and responsibilities of an IPP, the regulatory pressures and opportunities that these programs face, and how to build and manage a successful program.

The learning hospital: From theory to practice in a hospital infection prevention program

The learning hospital is distinguished by ceaseless evolution of erudition, enhancement, and implementation of clinical best practices. We describe a model for the learning hospital within the framework of a hospital infection prevention program and argue that a critical assessment of safety practices is possible without significant grant funding. We reviewed 121 peer-reviewed manuscripts published by the VCU Hospital Infection Prevention Program over 16 years. Publications included quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, surveys, interrupted time series analyses, and editorials. We summarized the articles based on their infection prevention focus, and we provide a brief summary of the findings. We also summarized the involvement of nonfaculty learners in these manuscripts as well as the contributions of grant funding. Despite the absence of significant grant funding, infection prevention programs can critically assess safety strategies under the learning hospital framework by leveraging a diverse collaboration of motivated nonfaculty learners. This model is a valuable adjunct to traditional grant-funded efforts in infection prevention science and is part of a successful horizontal infection control program.

Hospital-Acquired Infections Under Pay-for-Performance Systems: an Administrative Perspective on Management and Change

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to explore the impact of hospital-acquired infection on payment under pay-for-performance systems, and provide perspective on the role of administrators in infection prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hospital-acquired infections continue to pose a serious threat to patient safety and to the fiscal viability of healthcare facilities under pay-for-performance systems. There is mixed evidence that use of pay-for-performance systems leads to prevention of hospital-acquired conditions. Use of evidence-based guidelines has been shown to reduce hospital-acquired infections. Increasing use of pay-for-performance (PFP) systems results in potential loss of reimbursement for healthcare organizations that fail to prevent hospital-acquired infections (HAI). Healthcare administrators must work with front-line providers and infection control staff to establish and maintain evidence-based infection prevention policy. Additionally, infection control policy should be regularly updated to reflect best practices, and proper change management techniques should be employed in order to mobilize and empower staff to increase their ability to prevent hospital-acquired infections.

The issue of delivery room infections in the Italian law. A brief comparative study with English and French jurisprudence

Delivery room infections are frequent, and many of them could be avoided through higher standards of care. The authors examine this issue by comparing it to English and French reality. Unlike England, in Italy and France the relationship established between health facility, physician and patient is outlined in a contract. In England, the judges' decisions converge toward a better and higher protection of the patient-the actor-and facilitate the probative task. In case of infections, including those occurring in the delivery room, three issues are evaluated: the hospital's negligent conduct, damages if any and causal nexus. Therefore, the hospital must demonstrate to have taken the appropriate asepsis measures according to current scientific knowledge concerning not only treatment, but also diagnosis, previous activities, surgery and post-surgery. In order to avoid a negative sentence, both physicians and hospital have to demonstrate their correct behavior and that the infection was caused by an unforeseeable event. The authors examine the most significant rulings by the Courts and the Supreme Court. They show that hospitals can avoid being accused of negligence and recklessness only if they can demonstrate to have implemented all the preventive measures provided for in the guidelines or protocols.