Skip to main content

Table 2 Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF): comparative analysis of core components by facility level of care (N = 59)

From: First nationwide survey of infection prevention and control among healthcare facilities in Japan: impact of the national regulatory system

Core components

Facility level of care

P-value**

All (N = 59)

Tertiary (n = 19, 32.2%)

Secondary (n = 29, 49.2%)

Primary (n = 11,18.6%)

Tertiary vs. Secondary

Tertiary vs. Primary

Secondary vs. Primary

1. IPC programs

82.5 (65.0–90.0)

85.0 (82.5–95.0)

80.0 (68.7–88.7)

60.0 (52.5–75.0)

.040

 < .001

.022

2. IPC guidelines

90.0 (80.0–100)

100 (90.0–100)*

87.5 (78.7–100)*

72.5 (62.5–90.0)

.046

 < .001

.112

3. IPC education and training

75.0 (60.0–85.0)

85.0 (70.0–95.0)

72.5 (60.0–85.0)*

60.0 (50.0–70.0)

.091

.004

.342

4. HAI surveillance

77.5 (61.8–87.5)

85.0 (77.5–92.5)

77.5 (62.5–82.5)

60.0 (40.0–77.5))

.054

.001

.147

5. Multimodal strategies

65.0 (40.0–85.0)

85.0 (40.0–95.0)

65.0 (50.0–85.0)

45.0 (25.0–60.0)

.673

.017

.154

6. Monitoring/audit of IPC practices and feedback

67.5 (52.5–87.5)

82.5 (60.0–90.0)

67.5 (56.2–85.0)

50.0 (32.5–65.0)

.384

.010

.184

7. Workload, staffing and bed occupancy

85.0 (55.0–100)

95.0 (75.0–100)

85.0 (62.5–100)

50.0 (40.0–85.0)

.682

.003

.039

8. Built environment, materials, and equipment for IPC

97.5 (87.5–97.5)

100 (92.5–100)

97.5 (91.2–100)

87.5 (77.5–90.0)

1.000

.002

.012

Total

627.5 (528.7–712.5)

725.0 (617.5–759.3)

615.0 (547.5–687.5)

522.5 (382.5–570.0)

.079

 < .001

.033

  1. Continuous variable data are presented as median (IQR)
  2. IPC infection prevention and control, HAI healthcare-associated infection
  3. *One facility was excluded from the analysis because of incomplete answers
  4. **The Dunn-Bonferroni correction was performed