Ministry of Health and Welfare, Sejong, 30113, Republic of Korea.
Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, Cheongju, 28159, Republic of Korea.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2022 May 13;11(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s13756-022-01107-w.
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.
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.
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%).
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.
当前的 SARS-CoV-2 大流行继续凸显出感染预防和控制（IPC）的不足，以及在医疗机构中建立健全 IPC 的重要性。世界卫生组织的感染预防和控制评估框架（IPCAF）允许对医疗机构的 IPC 能力进行系统评估，并已在许多国家级调查中得到应用。本研究旨在通过分析与 IPCAF 框架的比较，评估韩国医院的 IPC 能力及其优势和缺陷。
韩国国家感染预防和控制调查（KNIPCS）于 2018 年 2 月至 3 月进行。KNIPCS 的调查问卷通过一系列专家咨询和两轮预测试在两家随机选择的医院中制定。该调查问卷共分发给 2108 家医院。尽管该调查先于 IPCAF 的发布，但它的内容在很大程度上符合 IPCAF，允许根据 IPCAF 对其结果进行探讨。
所有的三级医院和 96.5%的综合医院都成立了 IPC 团队，而长期护理医院的这一比例较低（6.3%）。医院类型的 IPC 监测和监测活动也呈现出类似的趋势。所有医院组的互动式 IPC 培训比例均低于 30%。所有医院类型（如综合医院的 97.3%和长期护理医院的 85.3%）都经常监测消毒情况。然而，在医院（25%）和长期护理医院（25%）中，针对抗菌药物耐药性的活动（如多药耐药病原体筛查）较弱，而在三级医院（83.3%）和综合医院（57.7%）中则相对较强。
总的来说，在韩国，大多数三级和综合医院都建立了基本的 IPC 结构，如 IPC 团队和计划。这些医院也积极开展了各种 IPC 活动。由于之前的大多数立法和多模式政策措施都针对这些医院群体，我们推测未来的政策努力应涵盖长期护理医院和较小规模的医院，以加强这些医院群体的 IPC 能力。还应努力促进 IPC 培训和抗菌活动。
