Skip to main content

Table 3 Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF): comparative analysis of core components by the facility status of the national financial incentive system for infection prevention and control (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 FI status for IPC

P-value**

Tier 1 (n = 45, 76.3%)

Tier 2 (n = 11, 18.6%)

No FI* (n = 3, 5.1%)

Tier 1 vs. Tier 2

1. IPC programs

85.0 (77.5–95.0)

60.0 (55.0–70.0)

35.0

 < .001

2. IPC guidelines

92.5 (82.5–100)†

67.5 (57.5–90.0)

72.5

.001

3. IPC education and training

80.0 (65.0–87.5)

60.0 (50.0–77.5) †

60.0

.014

4. HAI surveillance

82.5 (72.5–89.3) †

60.0 (40.0–70.0)

40.0

 < .001

5. Multimodal strategies

75.0 (52.5–90.0)

45.0 (35.0–55.0)

5.0

.017

6. Monitoring/audit of IPC practices and feedback

75.0 (57.5–90.0)

60.0 (40.0–77.5)

32.5

.028

7. Workload, staffing and bed occupancy

90.0 (75.0–100)

50.0 (45.0–85.0)

40.0

.011

8. Built environment, materials, and equipment for IPC

100 (92.5–100)

87.5 (77.5–95.0)

90.0

.001

Total

662.5 (575.0–735.0)

516.2 (401.2–570.6)

375.0 (343.8–453.8)

.001

  1. Continuous variable data are presented as median (IQR)
  2. Comparison between Tier 1, Tier 2, and no FI was performed because of the small sample size of no FI
  3. IPC infection prevention and control, HAI healthcare-associated infection, FI financial incentive
  4. *IQR was not described because of the small sample size (n = 3)
  5. **Mann–Whitney U test was performed
  6. †One facility was excluded from the analysis because of incomplete answers