Infection prevention and control lessons learned from the management of the first suspected Ebola virus disease case admitted to a New Zealand hospital

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Barratt
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Ebola Virus ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Ebola Virus Disease ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Disease Case ◽  
And Control

scholarly journals Infection Prevention and Control Capacity Building During 2018–2019 Democratic Republic of Congo Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s300-s300
Author(s):  
April Baller ◽  
Kevin Ousman ◽  
Maria Clara Padoveze ◽  
Charles Basilubo ◽  
Rodrigue Bobwa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Ebola Virus ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Democratic Republic Of Congo ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Ebola Virus Disease ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
And Control ◽  
Level Training

Background: As of July 1, 2019, ~18% of all cases in the Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) were healthcare-associated (ie, nosocomial) infections (HAIs) and healthcare worker (HCW) infections. Although progress has been achieved, gaps remained in infection prevention and control (IPC), specifically, a need to reinforce standardized, evidence-based IPC practices to effectively address HAIs. The Ministry of Health (MOH), in collaboration with partners, developed an IPC tool kit consisting of >70 documents (ie, terms of reference, standard operating procedures, training modules, etc) to improve HCW IPC knowledge and practices at healthcare facilities among staff. The tool kit incorporated international IPC standards, DRC-specific experiences, and best practices. Thus, it serves as a technical and operational package, covering general guidance (standard precautions) and EVD specific issues. Methods: A decentralized rollout approach was used to disseminate the tool kit content at the various health-system levels over several months. Initially, national-level training of trainers was held, followed by subnational-level training of IPC supervisors and key IPC implementers, and lastly, training of healthcare facility (HCF) IPC focal persons. The 5-day training adhered to the MOH standard of 60% theory and 40% practice. Participants completed evaluations before and after training; changes in knowledge between the pre- and posttraining tests were analyzed and the results of the statistical tests were reported (P < .05 was considered statistically significant). Results: In total, 294 IPC supervisors were trained across 7 subnational commissions. Data were analyzed for 138 participants. Participants were 60.9% IPC supervisors, 8% WASH supervisors, and 31% others. MOH representation was 52.9% The average results before the test were 66% (19.8 of 30), the average posttest results were 72% (21.6 of 30)—a significant improvement. The worst-performing pretest IPC domain was IPC approach, and facility closure was the worst performing for posttest. As of November 11, 15.7% of all cases were HAIs. Conclusions: The IPC training program initiated during an outbreak can increase knowledge and potentially improve practices and confidence. An association with the downward HAI trend is yet to be validated. The MOH anticipates that this tool kit will be the go-to resource for future Ebola outbreaks and that it will be incorporated into the preservice medical curriculum to ensure a resilient heath system.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Covid-19 pandemic: chronicle of responses and experiences of the infection prevention and control committee at a tertiary hospital in southwest Nigeria

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 1093-1099
Author(s):  
Akinwumi Ayodeji Akinbodewa ◽  
Michael Simidele Odimayo ◽  
Olorunfemi Akinbode Ogundele ◽  
Tosin Oluwapelumi Ogunleye ◽  
Olanrewaju Olayinka Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Healthcare Management ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
And Control

Since the advent of 2019-Corona virus Disease (COVID-19) in Nigeria in February 2020, the number of confirmed cases has risen astronomically to over 61,307 cases within 8 months with more than 812 healthcare workers infected and some recorded deaths within their ranks. Infection prevention and control is a key component in ensuring safety of healthcare workers in the hospital as health- care-associated infection is one of the most common complications of healthcare management. Unbridled transmission of infection can lead to shortage of healthcare personnel, reduced system efficiency, increased morbidity and mortality among patients and in some instances, total collapse of healthcare delivery services. The Infection Prevention and Control Committee is a recognised group by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention with their core programmes including drawing up activities, procedures and policies designed to achieve above-stated objectives before, during and after any disease outbreak, especially emerging and re-emerging ones such as the 2019 Coronavirus Disease. In this report, we highlight the roles played by the Infection Prevention and Control Committee of the University of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within and outside the hospital community and the lessons learned to date. Keywords: COVID-19; infection prevention; infection control; Nigeria.

The impact of supportive supervision of infection prevention and control practices on Ebola outbreak in Liberia

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 287-293
Author(s):  
Ogbaini-Emovon Ephraim ◽  
Sneh Cyrus ◽  
Pajibo Myer ◽  
Abah Steve
Keyword(s):  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Health Facilities ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Supportive Supervision ◽  
And Control ◽  
Isolation Facilities ◽  
The Impact

Background: Supportive supervision of infection prevention and control (IPC) practices was one of a range of interventions employed at the county level in the control of the world’s most deadly Ebola virus disease outbreak that affected Liberia during 2013–2016. Methods: Datasets generated from four consecutive assessment visits to 25 health facilities in Maryland County, in Liberia, were analysed. Information on IPC practices was obtained by interview, direct observation and completion of a standardised assessment tool. For each of the IPC fields assessed, a score < 50% was graded poor, 50–75% as fair, while > 75% was rated as good. Results: Before the intervention, the first assessment (baseline) indicated that the majority of the health facilities scored low in terms of isolation facilities, IPC administration, supply and equipment, personnel and staffing, triage and waste management. Following the application of supportive supervision and monitoring, all the facilities recorded moderate to good performance in all the fields during the fourth round of assessment, except for isolation facilities, which scored low. Conclusion: Supportive supervision and monitoring of healthcare facilities appeared to have contributed to the improvement in IPC standards and compliance during the Ebola outbreak as demonstrated in this small-scale study and should be sustained as a core component of IPC programs, particularly in prolonged outbreak situations.

scholarly journals The 100 top-Cited Studies on Ebola: A Bibliometric Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Kawuki ◽  
Taha Hussein Musa ◽  
Shireen Salome Papabathini ◽  
Upama Ghimire ◽  
Nathan Obore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Ebola Virus ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Ebola Virus Disease ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Effective Prevention ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background: The achievements in Ebola virus disease (EVD) prevention and control can be reflected by scientific studies, particularly in the top-cited studies. The study thus aimed to identify and characterise the 100 top-cited studies of Ebola.Methods: The study used a retrospective bibliometric analysis, which was performed in January 2020. Studies were searched from the Web of Science using the keywords: “Ebola” or “Ebola virus” or “Ebola virus disease” to identify the 100 top-cited ebola studies. Studies were analysed for the number of citations, authorship, and journal, year of publication, country and institution. The analyses were carried out using SPSS, HistCite and VOSviewer.Results: The 100 top-cited studies were published between 1977 and 2017, were cited from 169 to 808 times and had an average citation of 290.5, and 8 studies were cited more than 500 times. They were published in 31 journals, and Journal of Virology published most of the studies (n=14). They were produced by 33 countries, and the USA published most of the studies (63), followed by Germany (8) and Gabon (6). Centre for Disease prevention and Control-USA (26) was the leading institution, while Geisbert TW and Sanchez A were the most productive authors.Conclusions: This study provides insights into the historical advancements reflected by the top-cited studies and has highlighted the leading roles played by various stakeholders in addressing EVD. However, the contribution of African countries is not sufficiently reflected among these studies, and so more focus, funding and involvement in clinical research is needed for effective prevention and control of EVD in Africa.

scholarly journals Knowledge and practice of infection prevention and control among healthcare workers: a COVID-19 pandemic experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 596-602
Author(s):  
Rifat Yasmin ◽  
Huma Hussain ◽  
Syeda Turab Fatima Abidi ◽  
Syed Asim Ali Shah ◽  
Tazaeen Hina Kazmi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
P Value ◽  
Corona Virus ◽  
Knowledge And Practice ◽  
And Control

Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a global outbreak caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). Study aims to evaluate knowledge and practices of healthcare workers (HCW) regarding infection prevention and control of corona virus disease Material and methods: A cross sectional validation study was conducted. Study was conducted at department of Medicine, Pakistan Ordinance Factory Hospital, Wah Cantt. Study duration was 2 months (May 2020-June2020)A sample size of 217 HCW was calculated using WHO calculator. HCW were selected through non probability sampling (consecutive). Ethical permission was taken and research consent was signed by each participant. SPSS version 24 was used for analysis purpose. Post stratification fissure exact and chi-square test was applied. We found p value ≤0.05 as statistically significant. Results: Total 217 HCW were included in our study. Out of them, 85 (39.2%) were male and 132 (60.8%) were female in our study. Mean age of HCW was 34.5±2.4SD. In knowledge assessment majority of HCW had fair knowledge (46.5%), followed by good (30%) and poor knowledge (23.5%) regarding corona virus associated infection control and prevention. In practice assessment, among all those, 38.2% HCW showed better practices while 61.8% showed poor practices. Knowledge is significantly associated with virus transmission mode (p = 0.00), close contact (p = 0.000), protection from COVID-19 in triage area (p = 0.000), wearing PPE (p = 0.000) etc. Conclusion: Corona virus disease is a major challenge in resource limited countries. Healthcare workers showed relatively improved knowledge and practices regarding infection prevention and control in this COVID-19 Pandemic. Key words: Corona virus disease, Healthcare workers, Infection Prevention and Control, Knowledge, Practices Citation: Yasmin R, Hussain H, Abidi STF, Shah SAA, Kazmi TH, Hussain H. Knowledge and practice of infection prevention and control among healthcare workers: a COVID-19 pandemic experience. Anaesth pain intensive care 2020;24 (6):597-602 Received: 8 November 2020, Reviewed: 17 November 2020, Accepted: 19 November 2020

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document