Title |
Core components for effective infection prevention and control programmes: new WHO evidence-based recommendations
|
---|---|
Published in |
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, January 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13756-016-0149-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Julie Storr, Anthony Twyman, Walter Zingg, Nizam Damani, Claire Kilpatrick, Jacqui Reilly, Lesley Price, Matthias Egger, M. Lindsay Grayson, Edward Kelley, Benedetta Allegranzi, the WHO Guidelines Development Group |
Abstract |
Health care-associated infections (HAI) are a major public health problem with a significant impact on morbidity, mortality and quality of life. They represent also an important economic burden to health systems worldwide. However, a large proportion of HAI are preventable through effective infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. Improvements in IPC at the national and facility level are critical for the successful containment of antimicrobial resistance and the prevention of HAI, including outbreaks of highly transmissible diseases through high quality care within the context of universal health coverage. Given the limited availability of IPC evidence-based guidance and standards, the World Health Organization (WHO) decided to prioritize the development of global recommendations on the core components of effective IPC programmes both at the national and acute health care facility level, based on systematic literature reviews and expert consensus. The aim of the guideline development process was to identify the evidence and evaluate its quality, consider patient values and preferences, resource implications, and the feasibility and acceptability of the recommendations. As a result, 11 recommendations and three good practice statements are presented here, including a summary of the supporting evidence, and form the substance of a new WHO IPC guideline. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 10 | 15% |
Spain | 8 | 12% |
United States | 4 | 6% |
Switzerland | 3 | 5% |
Australia | 3 | 5% |
Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
Canada | 2 | 3% |
Denmark | 2 | 3% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 3% |
Other | 6 | 9% |
Unknown | 24 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 42 | 64% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 23% |
Scientists | 8 | 12% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 755 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 113 | 15% |
Researcher | 73 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 69 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 55 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 45 | 6% |
Other | 125 | 17% |
Unknown | 275 | 36% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 151 | 20% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 125 | 17% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 3% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 22 | 3% |
Social Sciences | 21 | 3% |
Other | 109 | 14% |
Unknown | 301 | 40% |