BACKGROUND: This review aimed to synthesize the evidence on infection prevention and control interventions for the prevention of health care-associated infection among health care workers or patients within primary care facilities.
METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for quantitative studies published between 2011 and 2022. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs tools, were conducted by independent review with additional sensitivity checking performed on study selection.
RESULTS: Four studies were included. A randomized trial and a cross-sectional survey, respectively, found no statistical difference in laboratory-confirmed influenza in health care workers wearing N95 versus medical masks (P = .18) and a significant inverse association between the implementation of tuberculosis control measures and tuberculosis incidence (P = .02). For the prevention of surgical site infections following minor surgery, randomized trials found nonsterile gloves (8.7%; 95% confidence interval, 4.9%-12.6%) to be noninferior to sterile gloves (9.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.4%-11.1%) and no significant difference between prophylactic antibiotics compared to placebo (P = .064). All studies had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for infection prevention and control interventions for the prevention of health care-associated infection in primary care is very limited and insufficient to make practice recommendations. Nevertheless, the findings highlight the need for future research.

BACKGROUND: In most high-income countries, emergency departments (ED) represent the principal point of access forcer by critically ill or injured patients. Unlike inpatient units, ED healthcare workers (ED HCWs) have demonstrated relative lack of adherence to hand hygiene (HH) guidelines, commonly citing frequency of intervention and high rates of admission, which reflect severity of cases encountered.
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of studies on hand hygiene compliance (HHC) by ED HCWs conducted between 2010 and 2020, seeking to estimate HHC rates and intervention strategies utilised to improve HHC in EDs.
METHODS: Searches conducted in Web of Science, EBSCO HOST (CINHAL & Medline), PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for full studies published between 2010 and 2020 on the topic of HHC in the ED.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine eligible articles were identified of which 79 were excluded. Fifty-one underwent full-text screening before 20 studies were deemed relevant. Of the eligible studies, fifteen (75%) had, as the primary outcome, HHC according to the WHO-recommended 5-moments. Twelve studies (60%) implemented multimodal or single intervention strategies. Eight studies were ambiguous regarding the nature of the approach adopted. In the nine observational studies where HHC was documented, an overall post-intervention median HHC rate of 45% (range 8-89.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal approaches appear to have enhanced HHC moderately among ED HCWs. Elevated complexity associated with critically ill patients, and ED overcrowding, are contributing factors to relatively low compliance rates observed. Strategies to improve HHC rates may need to acknowledge, and cater for, the context of an unpredictable environment.

BACKGROUND: Decontamination of non-critical objects shared by patients is key in reducing HAIs, but it is a complex process that needs precise guidance from UK NHS Acute Care Organisations (ACOs).
OBJECTIVE: To review the indications given by NHS ACOs\' policies regarding the decontamination of shared non-critical devices.
METHODS: Detailed lists of decontamination protocols for shared non-critical objects were retrieved from cleaning, disinfection, and decontamination policies of 35 NHS ACOs. Three parameters were considered for each object: decontamination method, decontamination frequency and person responsible for decontamination.
RESULTS: 1279 decontamination protocols regarding 283 different shared non-critical objects were retrieved. 689 (54%) did not indicate the person responsible for decontamination, while only 425 (33%), were complete, giving indications for all three parameters analysed. Only 2.5% (32/1279) decontamination protocols were complete and identical in two policies. In policies where cleaning represented the major decontamination method, chemical disinfection was rarely mentioned and vice versa. A general agreement among policies can be found for four main decontamination methods (detergent and water, detergent wipes, disinfectant wipes, use of disposable items), two decontamination frequencies (between events, daily) and two responsible person designations (nurses, domestic staff).
CONCLUSIONS: Decontamination protocol policies for shared non-critical objects had some similarities but did not concur on how each individual object should be decontaminated. The lack of clear indications regarding the person responsible for the decontamination process put at risk the ability of policies to serve as guidance.

BACKGROUND: There is general consensus that hand hygiene is the most effective way to prevent healthcare-associated infections. However, low rates of compliance amongst healthcare workers have been reported globally. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has further emphasized the need for global improvement in hand hygiene compliance by healthcare workers.
OBJECTIVE: This comprehensive systematic review provides an up-to-date compilation of clinical trials, reported between 2014 and 2020, assessing hand hygiene interventions in order to inform healthcare leaders and practitioners regarding approaches to reduce healthcare-associated infections using hand hygiene.
METHODS: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMbase, Medline, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for clinical trials published between March 2014 and December 2020 on the topic of hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers. In total, 332 papers were identified from these searches, of which 57 studies met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: Forty-five of the 57 studies (79%) included in this review were conducted in Asia, Europe and the USA. The large majority of these clinical trials were conducted in acute care facilities, including hospital wards and intensive care facilities. Nurses represented the largest group of healthcare workers studied (44 studies, 77%), followed by physicians (41 studies, 72%). Thirty-six studies (63%) adopted the World Health Organization\'s multi-modal framework or a variation of this framework, and many of them recorded hand hygiene opportunities at each of the \'Five Moments\'. However, recording of hand hygiene technique was not common.
CONCLUSIONS: Both single intervention and multi-modal hand hygiene strategies can achieve modest-to-moderate improvements in hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses are an important methodology in assessing whether a health care technology is suitable for widespread adoption. Common models used by economists, such as decision trees and Markov models, are appropriate for noninfectious diseases where treatment and exposure are independent. Diseases whose treatment and exposure are dependent require dynamic models to incorporate the nonlinear transmission effect. Two different types of models are often used for dynamic cost-effectiveness analyses: compartmental models and individual models. In this methodology-focused literature review, we describe each model type and summarize the literature associated with each using the example of health care-associated infections (HAIs).
METHODS: We conducted a review of the literature to identify dynamic cost-effectiveness analyses that examined interventions to prevent or treat HAIs. To be included in the review, studies needed to have each of 3 necessary components: involve economics, such as cost-effectiveness analysis and evidence of economic theory, use a dynamic transmission model, and examine HAIs.
RESULTS: Of the 9 articles published between 2005 and 2016 that met criteria to be included in our study, 3 used compartmental models and 6 used individual models.
CONCLUSIONS: Very few published studies exist that use dynamic transmission models to conduct economic analyses related to HAIs and even fewer studies have used these models to perform cost-effectiveness analyses.