Background The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to underscore the inadequacy of infection prevention and control (IPC) and the importance of its sound establishment in healthcare facilities. The Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) by the World Health Organization allows systematic assessment of IPC capacity in healthcare facilities and has been applied in many national-level surveys. This study aims to assess the IPC capacity of Korean hospitals as well as their strengths and pitfalls by analyzing the results of the first government-led nationwide IPC survey in comparison to the IPCAF frame. Methods The Korean National Infection Prevention and Control Survey (KNIPCS) was conducted from February to March 2018. The survey questionnaire for KNIPCS was developed through a series of expert consultations and a round of pre-testing in two randomly selected hospitals. The survey questionnaire was distributed to a total of 2108 hospitals. Although the survey preceded the release of IPCAF, its contents complied with IPCAF to a large extent, allowing exploration of its results with regards to IPCAF. Results All tertiary hospitals and 96.5% of general hospitals had implemented IPC teams, whereas the percentage was lower for long-term care hospitals (6.3%). A similar trend was observed for IPC surveillance and monitoring activities across hospital types. The percentage of interactive IPC training was lower than 30% in all hospital groups. Disinfection was frequently monitored in all hospital types (e.g. 97.3% in general hospitals and 85.3% in long-term care hospitals). However, activities regarding antimicrobial resistance, such as multi-drug resistant pathogen screening, were weak in hospitals (25%) and long-term care hospitals (25%), compared to tertiary hospitals (83.3%) and general hospitals (57.7%). Conclusions In general, essential IPC structures, such as IPC teams and programs, were well in place in most tertiary and general hospitals in Korea. These hospital groups also actively conducted various IPC activities. As most previous legislative and multimodal policy measures have targeted these hospital groups, we speculate that future policy efforts should encompass long-term care hospitals and smaller-sized hospitals to strengthen the IPC capacity of these hospital groups. Efforts should also be put forth to promote IPC training and antimicrobial activities.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted tuberculosis (TB) care and prevention around the world. The aim of this study is to review literature on the impact of COVID-19 on TB preventive services and discuss their policy options during and after the pandemic. Methods We conducted a rapid review of scientific literature on the impact of COVID-19 on TB preventive services and their recovery strategies. After conducting a line-by-line open coding, their codes were applied in the descriptive theme building process, which was guided by the End TB strategy. TB preventive measures were selected and classified into five analytical categories: 1) vaccination against TB, 2) detection and treatment of latent TB infection (LTBI), 3) screening and diagnostics, 4) active case finding and contact tracing, and 5) surveillance. Results We identified 93 articles, of which 65 were research articles. During the pandemic, we observed decrease in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) coverage, TB diagnostic services, case finding activities, and LTBI management. TB case detection was declined, which was not resumed to the pre-pandemic level after loosening the lock-down. Several recommendations were highlighted: 1) secure BCG stocks and its supply chains, 2) consider catch-up activities of routine immunization and LTBI screening, 3) maintain minimal TB health services, infection prevention and control, and surveillance, 4) leverage laboratory capacity and contact tracing mechanisms, 5) consider simultaneous testing for TB and COVID-19, and 6) Incorporate digital health technologies. Conclusions Our findings and lessons learnt from the pandemic can aid in the development of future national TB control program.

No abstract

Background: The current epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 continues to underscore the inadequacy of infection prevention and control (IPC) and the importance of its sound establishment in healthcare facilities. The Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF), developed by the World Health Organization, allows systematic assessment of IPC capacity in healthcare facilities and was therefore applied in many national-level surveys. This study aims to assess the IPC capacity of Korean hospitals as well as their strengths and pitfalls, by analyzing the results of the first nationwide IPC survey, using the IPCAF frame.Methods: The Korean National Infection Prevention and Control Survey (KNIPCS) was conducted from February to March 2018. As the survey preceded the release of IPCAF, the survey questionnaire was developed through a series of expert consultations. Although the KNIPCS did not directly apply the IPCAF, its contents complied with the IPCAF to a large extent to allow exploration of its results with regards to IPCAF. The survey questionnaire was distributed to a total of 2,108 hospitals.Results: A total of 1,442 hospitals completed the survey with a response rate of 68.4%. All tertiary hospitals and the majority of general hospitals had implemented IPC teams and programs, whereas the percentage was lower for smaller-sized hospitals and long-term care hospitals. A similar trend was observed for surveillance and IPC practice monitoring activities. The percentage of interactive IPC training was lower than 30% in all hospital groups. While activities and guidelines were frequently applied for activities such as disinfection and, activities regarding antimicrobial resistance were relatively weak in all hospital groups except for tertiary hospitals.Conclusions: In general, essential IPC structures, such as IPC teams and programs, were well in place in most tertiary and general hospitals in Korea. These hospital groups also more actively performed various IPC activities. As most previous legislative and multimodal policy measures have targeted these hospital groups, we have speculated that future policy efforts should encompass long-term care hospitals and smaller-sized hospitals to strengthen the IPC capacity of these hospital groups. Efforts should also be put forth to promote IPC training and antimicrobial activities.

No abstract