2018
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy1114
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preventing Bloodstream Infections and Death in Zambian Neonates: Impact of a Low-cost Infection Control Bundle

Abstract: Background Sepsis is a leading cause of neonatal mortality in low-resource settings. As facility-based births become more common, the proportion of neonatal deaths due to hospital-onset sepsis has increased. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study in a neonatal intensive care unit in Zambia where we implemented a multifaceted infection prevention and control (IPC) bundle consisting of IPC training, text message remind… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
42
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, we utilized interview methods to uncover the perceptions of doctors and nurses working in a Zambian NICU during the implementation phase of a study to evaluate a low-cost infection prevention bundle. Implementation of the bundle was successful --rates of sepsis, BSIs and death among neonates in the NICU declined during the study period [17]. The concurrent qualitative study revealed important insights into the implementation context that can be strategically leveraged to spread and sustain the effects of the intervention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this study, we utilized interview methods to uncover the perceptions of doctors and nurses working in a Zambian NICU during the implementation phase of a study to evaluate a low-cost infection prevention bundle. Implementation of the bundle was successful --rates of sepsis, BSIs and death among neonates in the NICU declined during the study period [17]. The concurrent qualitative study revealed important insights into the implementation context that can be strategically leveraged to spread and sustain the effects of the intervention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Our team recently completed a large observational cohort study to measure the impact of a low-cost infection prevention bundle on rates of neonatal hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (BSIs) as well as overall mortality in a large Zambian NICU [17]. Implementation of the bundle led to an observed reduction in rates of suspected sepsis, BSIs and death among neonates in the NICU.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ours is the rst study to evaluate the potential of environmental cleaning as a standalone HAI prevention intervention, with only one prior study including cleaning in a neonatal infection prevention bundle. 20 Furthermore, the key contribution of hospital cleaners and cleaning practices to patient safety is underappreciated in many LMIC settings 24 , despite the substantial risk of pathogen transmission from environmental reservoirs. [4][5][6] In this paper, we report the impact of a multimodal intervention (neoCLEAN) on the adequacy of surface and equipment cleaning in a South African neonatal ward using bacterial cultures, ATP assays and UV marker removal rates.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16,18 In contrast to the extensive experience with hospital cleaning bundles in high-income settings, there are few published reports on their use in low-resource setting and in particular, African country neonatal units. 19,20 As hospital cleaning bundles are key tools for HAI prevention 17 , research is needed to measure their impact on cleaning practices in resource-limited settings. Therefore, we assessed the impact of a multimodal intervention on the adequacy of surface and equipment cleaning in a South African neonatal ward.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of note, although our initial search captured a large number of potentially eligible studies, full text review led to 40/120 (33%) papers being excluded due to not including mandatory criteria required by ICROMS, or having a low score for study design/analysis quality. Thus some geographical areas were not well represented-in particular sub-Saharan Africa with only one study included 34 . This highlights the challenges for clinicians in LMIC settings to identify and implement contextually appropriate evidence-based guidelines.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%