Skip to main content

Evaluation of the implementation of WHO infection prevention and control core components in Turkish health care facilities: results from a WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework (IPCAF)—based survey

Abstract

Background

The core components (CCs) of infection prevention and control (IPC) from World Health Organization (WHO) are crucial for the safety and quality of health care. Our objective was to examine the level of implementation of WHO infection prevention and control core components (IPC CC) in a developing country. We also aimed to evaluate health care-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in intensive care units (ICUs) in association with implemented IPC CCs.

Methods

Members of the Turkish Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Specialization Association (EKMUD) were invited to the study via e-mail. Volunteer members of any healt care facilities (HCFs) participated in the study. The investigating doctor of each HCF filled out a questionnaire to collect data on IPC implementations, including the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) and HAIs/AMR in ICUs in 2021.

Results

A total of 68 HCFs from seven regions in Türkiye and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus participated while 85% of these were tertiary care hospitals. Fifty (73.5%) HCFs had advanced IPC level, whereas 16 (23.5%) of the 68 hospitals had intermediate IPC levels. The hospitals’ median (IQR) IPCAF score was 668.8 (125.0) points. Workload, staffing and occupancy (CC7; median 70 points) and multimodal strategies (CC5; median 75 points) had the lowest scores. The limited number of nurses were the most important problems. Hospitals with a bed capacity of > 1000 beds had higher rates of HAIs. Certified IPC specialists, frequent feedback, and enough nurses reduced HAIs. The most common HAIs were central line-associated blood stream infections. Most HAIs were caused by gram negative bacteria, which have a high AMR.

Conclusions

Most HCFs had an advanced level of IPC implementation, for which staffing was an important driver. To further improve care quality and ensure everyone has access to safe care, it is a key element to have enough staff, the availability of certified IPC specialists, and frequent feedback. Although there is a significant decrease in HAI rates compared to previous years, HAI rates are still high and AMR is an important problem. Increasing nurses and reducing workload can prevent HAIs and AMR. Nationwide “Antibiotic Stewardship Programme” should be initiated.

Background

Health care-associated infections (HAIs) are one of the most common adverse events in health care [1]. Despite the developments in infection control measures today, HAIs continue to maintain their importance with their incidence, mortality, cost, and contribution to antimicrobial resistance [2,3,4,5,6]. The HAI burden is reported to be higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in developed countries [2, 7]. It is estimated that 63.5% of infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are health care-related [6]. In recent years, although carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter, Klebsiella, and Pseudomonas species has been an important problem, methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin resistance in Enterococcus faecium continue to maintain their importance [8,9,10,11]. The major high-risk areas for HAIs in healthcare facilities are intensive care units (ICU). Both HAI and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rates are reported to be higher in patients hospitalized in the ICU [12]. The mortality ratio in patients infected with resistant microorganisms is at least two to three times higher than in patients infected with susceptible microorganisms [2]. Therefore, prevention of HAIs is a global priority in order to reduce AMR, which has been going on for years, the so-called “silent pandemic”, and other adverse effects on the health system. Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes that will prevent the development of HAI and AMR gain more importance for countries with limited resources due to the fact that they constitute a significant burden on the country's economy [13].

In the SENIC study, performed in the early 1970s to assess the efficiency of the control of nosocomial infections, the establishment of surveillance and/or infection control measures was shown to prevent HAIs, and practices aimed at preventing HAIs gained momentum [14].

In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) made recommendations for IPC programmes, summarized in eight core components (CCs), and subsequently specified the minimum requirements for IPC practices in 2018 [15, 16]. In addition, the WHO released the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) questionnaire [17].

IPC minimum requirements consist of eight CC, including the IPC programme (CC1), IPC guidelines (CC2), IPC education and training (CC3), HAI surveillance (CC4), multimodal strategies for implementing IPC activities (CC5), monitoring and audits of IPC practices and feedback (CC6), workload, staffing, and occupancy (CC7), and the built environment, materials, and equipment for IPC at the facility level (CC8) [15]. In the IPCAF survey, establishments are given a score based on these eight CCs, and the results are then classified into one of the four IPC categories. Insufficient is indicated by a score of 0–200 points; basic is 201–400 points; intermediate is 401–600 points; and advanced IPC level is 601–800 points [17]. In addition, this survey provides a possibility for evaluation, analysis, and improvement of IPC activities carried out in health care facilities (HCFs).

The COVID-19 pandemic we are experiencing has shown how necessary IPC programmes are for the safety of corporate patients and health care professionals, as well as global health security [18]. With the implementation of IPC programmes, safe and quality health care can be provided for those who use health services and those who offer this service [19].

Until the 2000s, IPC activities in Türkiye were carried out through individual efforts spearheaded by academic members. The most crucial step to strengthening IPC activities in Türkiye has been achieved with the Inpatient Treatment Institutions Infection Control Regulation published in 2005 [20]. With this regulation, national surveillance and IPC programmes supported by the Ministry of Health have been initiated. Infection control committees (ICC) with at least one certified full-time infection control nurse and infection control doctor in all institutions have been established, national surveillance ground rules have been developed, and then multimodal hand hygiene campaigns and national education and training programmes have been carried out. In 2006, HAI and hand hygiene compliance data started to be provided to a national data server. In 2008, surveillance data began to be reported to the Ministry of Health via a web-based surveillance system (the National Health Service Associated Infections Surveillance Network, or USHIESA) using internationally accepted definitions and standardized forms [20,21,22]. National HAI surveillance has focused primarily on the surveillance and prevention of device-associated HAI (DA-HAI) in ICUs [23]. With the change in the Infection Control Regulation of Inpatient Treatment Institutions in 2011, assigning an infection control nurse for every 150 full beds became mandatory, taking into account the annual average bed occupancy rate [20].

Trainings for infection control nurses were initiated by the Ministry of Health in 2007 with a standard training programme. Trainings were provided at Ministry-approved training centers until 2017. Since 2017, the theoretical part of the education has been carried out using distance education techniques, followed by practical training lasting 15 working days at the training centers. For theoretical education, 40 lessons in 7 modules are taught by 22 trainers. For 2018, the total number of training centers in 17 provinces is 37. The validity period of the infection control nursing certificate is seven years. The certificates of nurses whose certificates have expired are renewed through the recertification exam, which has been offered via distance education since 2017. Certified nurses can benefit from distance theoretical education. Until 2013, a training programme given by the Ministry for physicians working in infection control committees, followed by an infection control doctor certification exam, was implemented. Infection control doctor certification has been abolished since 2013. All physicians can participate in infection control trainings, which started in 2017 and are conducted using distance education techniques, and receive participation certificates when they complete the training [21, 22].

Nearly 15 years have passed since the start of the national IPC program in Türkiye. However, the degree of implementation of IPC CCs in Turkish HCFs and IPC practices’ effect on HAI rates have not been investigated yet.

The main aim of this study is to evaluate the IPC practices in Turkish HCFs and determine the level of IPC in Turkish HCFs using the IPCAF survey tool. Our second aim is to determine how often HAIs and AMR occur in ICUs in 2021 and whether the lack of IPC components is usually associated with HAIs.

Methods

Study design and participants

Members of the Türkiye Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Specialization Association (EKMUD) dealing with HAIs were invited to the study via e-mail. EKMUD is the national, professional, and scientific association of infectious diseases and clinical microbiology specialists. According to the statistics of the ministry of health in Türkiye for 2020, there are a total of 1534 hospitals in Türkiye, including 900 hospitals under the ministry of health, 68 university hospitals, and 566 private hospitals [24]. In Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), there are two university hospitals and four private hospitals. Members of the EKMUD are present in most hospitals in Türkiye and the TRNC. The participation of the centers was based on voluntarism, and there were no criteria other than involvement with HAIs. A questionnaire form was created for the study. The first part of the questionnaire was a self-assessment, which included the descriptive characteristics of HCFs (hospital type, units available, number of beds, number of doctors and nurses in ICUs and HCFs, number of infection control doctors and nurses, etc.) and information about IPC CCs, including the IPCAF questionnaire for 2021. The questionnaire was in Turkish, and the IPCAF questionnaire was translated into Turkish. The Turkish version of the IPCAF questionnaire is shown in Additional File 1. The second part of the questionnaire included data on HAIs, causative pathogens, and resistance to selected antibiotics in ICU in 2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) /National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) criteria were used to define HAIs [25]. For HAI developing in the ICU, infections developing on or after the 3rd day of admission to the ICU or the transfer rule in the CDC/NHSN criteria were considered [15]. Pathogens that caused HAIs in ICUs were tested to see how resistant they were to certain antibiotics. Before the study data were collected, online meetings were held with all participants to go over the study's design and the introduction of the questionnaire forms in order to get reliable results.

In order to ensure data confidentiality, a special code was created for each institution in the study, and each HCF provided data entry with this code. Google Forms was used to collect all data.

Each center separately obtained administrative permission for the study, which was ethically approved by the Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine Non-Invasive Clinical Research Ethics Committee (GOKAEK-2022/01.19, project number: 2022/15).

Measurements

According to the answers given to each question in the IPCAF questionnaire, the scoring specified in the guide was applied, and then a descriptive analysis was performed. It was possible to get a maximum of 100 points for each of the eight CCs of the IPCAF. After adding up the eight CC scores, the maximum IPCAF score was 800. According to the final total score, hospitals were categorized into four different IPC levels: 0–200 points ‘‘insufficient’’, 201–400 points ‘‘basic’’, 401–600 points ‘‘intermediate’’, and 601–800 points ‘‘advanced’’.

Statistical analysis

SPSS software (version 21; IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were presented as numbers and percentages, mean ± standard deviation (SD) if quantitative data fit the normal distribution, and median, interquartile range (IQR) if they did not. Compliance with the quantified normal distribution was evaluated with histogram, Detrended Q-Q plot, and Shapiro–Wilk test. Comparisons (Chi-square, Fischer's exact test, Student's t-test, Mann Whitney U test) and multivariate analysis were performed to identify factors associated with rates of HAIs. The significance level was accepted as p < 0.05 (bi-directional). No imputations were made to replace the missing values.

Results

Characteristics of participating hospitals

In total, there are 1536 HCFs in Türkiye and 6 HCFs in the TRNC. At the first stage, 76 of these HCFs stated that they were willing to participate in the study [24]. Eight HCFs subsequently withdrew from the study, stating that they did not have sufficient time to collect and present data. Therefore, the study was carried out at 68 HCFs. 85% of these are hospitals classified as tertiary care. The distribution of these hospitals was training and research hospitals (TRH, 39.7%), university hospitals (UH, 32.4%), and city hospitals (CH, 13.2%). In addition, seven of the other HCFs participating in the study were state hospitals (SH, 10.3%), and only three were private hospitals (PH, 4.4%). The distribution of HCFs included in the study from Türkiye and the TRNC is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Distribution of the hospitals included in the study to the seven regions of Türkiye and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

The distribution of IPCAF scores

When the IPCAF results from 68 HCFs were analyzed, it was found that 0 HCF had inadequate IPC levels, 2 (2.9%) had basic IPC levels, 16 (23.5%) had intermediate levels, and 50 (73.5%) had advanced levels. The median (IQR) IPCAF score of the HCFs was 668.8 (125.0) points. Advanced IPC levels were present in 77.8% of TRHs, 59.1% of UHs, 88.9% of CHs, 71.4% of SHs, and 100% of PHs (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The evaluation of participating hospitals according to IPCAF score results

IPC core components

IPC guidelines (CC2) had the highest scores, while multi-modal strategies (CC5) and workload, staffing, and bed occupancy at the facility level (CC7) had the lowest scores (Table 1).

Table 1 Distribution of results of the total IPCAF scores among participating hospitals, Median (IQR)

CC1: IPC programme

When the IPCAF score for CC1 of all HCFs was evaluated, the median (IQR) CC1 score was 90.0 (17.5) points. CC1 scores were high in PH, UH, and CH but low in TRH and SH. However, more varied results were seen when focusing on specific questions in CC1. It was determined that only 15 (22%) of the hospitals had a budget allocated for the IPC programme, although senior institution leaders reported that 74% of the hospitals supported the IPC targets and indicators within their hospital. Only 47.1% of all HCFs met the WHO recommendation that there be one IPC specialist for every 250 beds. In addition, in 74% of the hospitals, the number of infection control nurses was below the number recommended by the national regulation (1 nurse/150 beds).

CC2: IPC guidelines

The IPCAF score for CC2 of all HCFs was the highest among all CCs, with a median (IQR) of 98.8 (13.8) points. The IPCAF score for CC2 of all HCFs was the highest among all CCs, with a median (IQR) of 98.8 (13.8) points. All institutions said they had written IPC guidelines. These guidelines are essentially national guidelines. Some of the guidelines have been regulated locally on the basis of national and international guidelines. But when specific guidelines were looked at, the results were mixed. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, 5 (7.4%) of the HCFs still do not have guidelines for handling outbreaks and being ready for them. Antibiotic stewardship (85.3%) and injection safety (86.8%) were written guidelines with relatively lower rates than other guidelines.

CC3: IPC education and training

The median (IQR) IPCAF score for CC3 of all HCFs was 80.8 (20.0) points. All of the HCFs reported that they have a training programme on hand hygiene, isolation precautions, environmental cleaning and disinfection, and the use of personal protective equipment, and that training is provided at least once a year. Other training topics are catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CA-UTI) prevention (95.6%), central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI) prevention (97.1%), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) prevention (94.1%), waste management (95.6%), instrument cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization (97.1%), surgical site infection (SSI) prevention (92.6%), and personnel health (79.4%). While 48.5% of these trainings were only with written information, verbal instruction, or e-learning, 51.5% were additional interactive training sessions (e.g., simulation and/or bedside training).

Besides the IPC professionals, 45 (66.2%) of the HCFs had staff with enough skills to help with education. Only 22.1% of the HCFs made sure that IPC training was part of clinical practice and training for all specialties. Also, it was found that patients and family members get less IPC training than health care workers.

CC4: HAI surveillance

The median (IQR) IPCAF score for CC4 of all HCFs was 92.5 (12.5) points. Surveillance was applied both on a clinical (clinical identification of nosocomial infections based on clinical symptoms and signs in the absence of microbiological testing) and laboratory basis in 98.5% of hospitals. Seven (10.3%) of the hospitals said they didn't have enough information technology (IT) help to handle surveillance.

CC5: Multimodal strategies for implementing IPC activities

The median (IQR) IPCAF score for CC5 across all HCFs was 75 (12.5) points, among the lowest scores. 48 HCFs (70.6%) stated that they used multimodal strategies.

CC6: Monitoring, evaluation and feedback

The median (IQR) IPCAF score for CC6 of all HCFs was 90 (11.9) points. In 98.5% of HCFs, monitoring data was reported regularly (at least once a year).

CC7: Workload, staffing, and bed occupancy at the facility level

The IPCAF score for CC7 of all centers was the lowest, with a median (IQR) of 70 [34] points. Most HCFs stated that they do not use standard assessment tools (WHO or national) for workload and staffing levels and that there is no system in place to act on the results of staffing needs assessments when staffing levels are deemed to be insufficient. In our additional evaluations, the limited number of nurses and their workload were identified as the most important problems. The ratio of nurses to patients in the tertiary ICUs was greater than 0.5 for 62% of the day shift and 47% of the night shift.

CC8: Built environment, materials, and equipment for IPC at the facility level

The median (IQR) IPCAF score for CC8 of all HCFswas 92.5 [20] points. Most HCFs reported that the built environment, materials, and equipment for IPC at the facility level were available and sufficient.

A full description of all the IPCAF questions and the answers we received from the participating hospitals can be found in Additional File 2 of this article.

HAIs and AMR in ICUs

The features of ICUs and HAIs, the microorganisms found in HAIs in ICUs, and the rates of AMR to selected antibiotics in the HAI-causing pathogens are detailed in Tables 2, 3, and 4 for 2021 in these ICUs. Also, the features of ICUs and HAIs in ICUs can be found in detail according to HCF types in Additional File 3.

Table 2 The features of ICUs and HAIs in ICU, 2021
Table 3 The microorganisms found in HAIs in ICUs, %
Table 4 The rates of antimicrobial resistance to selected antibiotics in HAIs-causing pathogens in intensive care units

HAIs and AMR in Adult ICUs

It has been reported that a total of 247,039 inpatients developed a total of 11,969 HAIs in 64 HCFs that performed adult ICU surveillance. It was determined that the rate of urinary catheter use was very high, central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI) was the most common DA-HAI, and the most common non-device-associated-HAIs (NDA-HAIs) were bloodstream infections (BSI) and pneumonia. The most frequently isolated microorganisms in HAIs were Acinetobacter baumannii (21.2%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (16.3%). It was shown that non-albicans Candida was more prevalent than other types of fungus. Candida spp. (3,7%) and Candida parapsilosis (2%) were the most common pathogens that were responsible for the non-albicans Candida infections. In only two HAIs, Candida auris was detected as a causative pathogen. 92% carbapenem resistance and 7% colistin resistance were determined in A. baumannii, the most common HAI pathogen. In K. pneumoniae, 58% carbapenem resistance and 26% colistin resistance were detected. Oxacillin resistance was 71% in coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS), and 43% in Staphylococcus aureus. Teicoplanin and vancomycin resistance in E. faecium were 19% and 14%, respectively.

HAIs in neonatal ICUs

In 47 HCFs applying surveillance, 1237 HAIs were found in a total of 51,003 patients. The most common DA-HAI was CLABSI, while the most common NDA-HAIs were BSIs and urinary tract infections (UTI). K. pneumoniae (22.4%), A. baumannii (9.5%), and CNS (8.6%) were the most commonly isolated pathogens. 39% carbapenem resistance and 36% colistin resistance were detected in K. pneumoniae; 94% carbapenem resistance and 3% colistin resistance were detected in A. baumannii. Oxacillin resistance was 72% in CNSs, while it was 37% in S. aureus. Teicoplanin and vancomycin resistance in E. faecium were 38% and 43%, respectively.

HAIs in pediatric ICUs

In 38 HCFs performing pediatric ICU surveillance, 806 HAIs were detected in a total of 16,274 patients. While the most common DA-HAI was CLABSI, the most common NDA-HAI was BSI. The three pathogens that were found to be the most common were K. pneumoniae (22.9%), P. aeruginosa (16.2%), and A. baumannii (12.16%). A carbapenem resistance ratio of 64% and a colistin resistance ratio of 11% were found in K. pneumoniae, whereas a carbapenem resistance ratio of 89% and a colistin resistance ratio of 11% were found in A. baumannii. The percentage of oxacillin-resistant CNS was determined to be 63 percent, whereas the percentage of resistant S. aureus was 44 percent. Teicoplanin and vancomycin resistance was discovered in 33% of the E. faecium strains identified, which was accounted three of the nine strains.

IPC level, IPC core components, and HAIs

In adult ICUs, all infection rates were higher in HCFs that had moderate IPC levels when compared to facilities that had advanced IPC levels (Table 5). There was a trend towards lower HAI rates when the IPC level was higher, albeit one that was not statistically significant. This difference in the rate of VAP in the adult ICU was statistically significant (p = 0.047).

Table 5 The effect of IPC levels on health care-associated infection rates in ICUs

In general, the rates of HAIs were higher in ICUs of hospitals that provide tertiary care (TRH, CH, and UH) as opposed to secondary care hospitals (SH and PH), and in hospitals that have a bed capacity of more than 1000 as opposed to hospitals that have a bed capacity of less than 500. The presence of a certified infection control doctor and/or nurse, hand hygiene observation, and antiseptic use feedback should be done monthly rather than for periods longer than three months, and the number of nurses per bed in the day shift is greater than 0.5, are all factors that have been linked to a reduction in HAI rates, though this varies depending on the type of ICU and developing HAI (Table 6, Additional File 4). Particularly in adult ICUs of HCFs with a hospital bed capacity of more than 500 patients, there were fewer than 0.5 nurses per bed for ICUs during a day shift, which significantly raised the rate of VAE (p = 0.015).

Table 6 Certain IPC components are linked to health care-associated infections in ICUs

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive national study to evaluate IPC practices in HCFs in Türkiye, a middle-income developing country, using the IPCAF questionnaire. In addition, the respective effects of IPC levels (IPCAF score) and the implementation of CCs on the rates of HAI developing in the ICU were investigated. In our study, in the evaluation made in terms of core components after the national infection control programme had been implemented in Türkiye for 15 years, it was determined that the application rates of IPC CCS in health institutions were quite high. Although performance observation was not made for IPC practices in the study, as a result of the evaluation made using IPCAF, the opportunity to define the strengths, gaps, and key points for improvement in IPC practices in our country was obtained. The results we obtained from 68 hospitals are acceptable for the whole country due to the participation in the study of seven regions of Türkiye and the regulation of infection prevention and control, which has been well established in the country for 15 years.

When all the HCFs in our study were evaluated, the participating HCFs (75%) had an advanced level of IPC (668.8 points) based on CCs. Internationally, in a recent WHO global study that analyzed 81 nations, advanced levels of IPC (IPCAF median score of 605 points) were predominantly found in high-income countries [26]. In contrast, lower scores were reported for low-income countries (385 points), LMIC (504 points), and public facilities (515 points) [26]. It has been reported that 84.5% of hospitals in Germany have advanced level of IPC [27]. Similarly, advanced IPC levels were detected in Austria [28]. On the other hand, it was demonstrated that all of the institutions evaluated in Islamabad had IPCAF scores below 200 [29]. In another study, only 14.3% of institutions in Ghana, a country with limited resources, had advanced IPC levels. [30].

According to the findings of our research, despite the fact that our nation is classified as a middle-income developing country, it has a high IPCAF score that is comparable to that of high-income countries. However, the fact that some hospitals are only at the basic or intermediate levels of the IPC demonstrates that there is still opportunity for progress in this subject. In addition, the statement that 100% of PHs had advanced IPC levels may be misleading when making generalizations due to the fact that our study only included three PHs.

The highest IPC CC scores reported in HCFs around the worldwere in CC8 (built environment) and CC2 (guidelines) [26]. In contrast, CC7 (workload, staffing, and bed occupancy), CC5 (multimodal strategies), and CC3 (IPC education and training) were the lowest-rated CCs [26,27,28]. On the other hand, CC4 (HAI surveillance) and CC6 (monitoring IPC implementation and feedback) were reported as the lowest-scoring CCs in low-income countries [26]. Even in high-income countries such as Germany and Austria, workloads, implementation of multimodal strategies, and a lack of feedback have been reported [27, 28]. In our research, the highest scoring component was CC2 (IPC guidelines; median 98.8 points), while the lowest-scoring components were CC7 (workload, staff, and bed occupancy; median 70.0 points) and CC5 (multimodal strategies; median 75.0 points).

According to the results of our research, the IPC programmes are generally well known in Türkiye, as indicated by the median score of 90 points on the IPCAF CC1 assessment. One possible explanation for this is that the government has strict regulations for controlling infectious diseases. For all HCFs, a score of 92.5 points was determined to be the median for CC4 (HAI surveillance). It demonstrates that there is a well-established and well-functioning surveillance system comparable to that of industrialized countries, as well as that monitoring and feedback of IPC procedures are effectively implemented. The poor score on the CC5 (multimodal strategies) section may be due to the fact that multimodal strategies are still a relatively novel concept in infection control. A median score of 75 points for CC5 in our analysis demonstrates that this component has much potential for development. However, it also indicates that this new multimodal strategies of doing things has been adopted by a significant number of HCFs.

In our study, it was observed that the requirement of one IPC specialist per 250 beds, as recommended by WHO, and an infection control nurse for 150 beds, as recommended by national regulations, could not be met. Furthermore, other than IPC personnel, only 45 (66.2%) of the institutions had personnel present who possessed the necessary abilities to assist in educational work. The presence of qualified personnel to assist with training in institutions alleviates the workload of an insufficient number of IPC professionals.

In addition, we detected a significant shortcoming in the study: only a relatively small number of institutions offer the integration of IPC training into clinical practice for all medical subspecialties. Due to the fact that IPC practices affect every department within the organization, additional arrangements are needed to ensure the integration of IPC training into all specialties.

Another issue that was discovered was that most HCFs did not provide patients and members of their families with access to private IPC training. There is limited data in the literature on IPC training for patients and family members. The CDC recommends that patients and family members receive education on IPC [31]. However, a systematic review highlighted that IPC education for patients is very low [32]. Especially in countries where family members participate in patient care, it is important to make arrangements for the IPC training of patient relatives [33]. It was reported that nurses who know a lot about IPC give more training to patients and their family members [34]. This means that nurses who are trained in IPC have a very important role to play in increasing the participation and education of patients and family members in IPC.

In our study, 74% of HCFs reported that IPC goals and indicators had the support of their leaders. However, just 22% of HCFs had a budget for IPC programmes. In addition, 7.3% of the HCFs reported that they lacked sufficient IT assistance to manage to monitor. There is a requirement for regulations to resolve these deficiencies, which can be remedied with the assistance of the institution's administrators.

In this study, workload and the limited number of nurses were reported as the most critical gaps in parallel with the literature. In addition to the fact that there were not enough nurses working in infection control, it was discovered that there were not enough nurses working in ICUs, which is where the majority of infections in hospitals occur. The ratio of nurses to patients in the 3rd level ICUs was higher than 0.5 in 62% of the day shift and 47% of the night shift. Although not statistically significant, the HAI rate was higher in ICUs with a nurse/patient ratio of < 0.5. Studies have reported that the risk of developing infection increases with an increase in workload, especially in critically ill patients [35]. A study showed that a low nurse/patient ratio was associated with a 50% increase in the risk of HAIs. A nurse/patient ratio of less than 1.9 was associated with an increased risk of disease [36]. In another study, it was estimated that 26.7% of all infections could be prevented if the nurse-patient ratio was kept at > 2.2 [35].

In addition, a study showed that carbapenem resistance in gram-negative bacteria increased with a decrease in nurse density [37]. This information underscores the necessity to consider nurses' contributions to the fight against AMR in future health policy and suggests that nurse competence may play a role in halting the development of AMR. The key determinant in the prevention of HAIs in critically ill patients is to maintain a higher level of nursing staff. With the help of this research, it has been understood that it is very important to take action to increase the number of nurses in our country.

ICUs are more risky areas for the development of HAIs. In particular, the majority of HAIs are associated with the invasive devices used [9]. In a study by Blot et al., the rate of VAP in 1000 ventilator days in ICU was 0.9–4.4 in the USA, 9.8 in Europe, 17.8 in China, and 17–29 in Türkiye; CLABSI per 1000 catheter days has been reported to be 0.9–3.4, 3.6, 9.7, and 12 in America, Europe, China, and Türkiye, respectively [10]. In our study, although it varies according to the type of HCFs, VAP in 1000 ventilator days was 4.8 in adult ICU, 1.9 in neonatal ICU, and 2.1 in pediatric ICU; CLABSI was found to be 7.1 in adult ICU, 6.9 in neonatal ICU, and 4.9 in pediatric ICU at 1000 catheter days. In our study, it is noteworthy that the CLABSIs were higher than those in America and Europe. A significant increase in hospital-acquired BSIs in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients was found in 2020 compared to the pre-pandemic period in a group of hospitals in London [38]. The rise in BSIs identified in our investigation might be due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been thought that the need to employ less qualified intensive care nurses due to the increased workforce during the pandemic process may have contributed to this increase.

Research has underlined the impact of the growing usage of noninvasive high-flow ventilation on increased nonventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia (4.5 per 1000 patient days) [39]. The increasing use of noninvasive high-flow ventilation during the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to our research’s elevated prevalence of nosocomial pneumonia in the adult ICU.

In a study evaluating the effectiveness of a national surveillance system supported by a national IPC program (certification of IPC personnel, training of healthcare personnel, multimodal hand hygiene campaigns, guidelines, surveillance with internationally accepted standardized definitions, rapid data reporting and analysis methods to the Ministry, and continuous surveillance) to reduce DA-HAIs in Türkiye based on 1000 invasive device days from 2008 to 2017, VAE decreased from 16.69 to 4.86, CA-UTI from 4.98 to 1.59, and CLABSI from 5.65 to 2.82. When evaluated according to institutions, from 2008 to 2017, VAE in 1000 ventilator days has been reported to decrease from 22.34 to 10.7 in UHs; from 14.68 to 5.89 in TRHs; from 16.94 to 3.91 in SHs; and from 10.28 to 2.64 in PHs [23]. In our study's 2021 data, we identified a reduced incidence density of VAE and a declining trend in CA-UTI but a greater incidence density of CLABSI.

In the national 2020 surveillance report, the most often reported HAIs are BSI, pneumonia, and UTI. According to the paper, the most prevalent causes of HAIs are Klebsiella spp. (19.2%), Acinetobacter spp. (17.6%), Pseudomonas spp. (9.2%), and E. coli (8.6%). Furthermore, the most commonly discovered gram-positive pathogens were Enterococcus spp. (7.3%), CNS (5.3%), and S. aureus (4.5%) [40]. In another study conducted in our country, it was reported that the most common HAIs in ICUs were BSI, VAP, CA-UTI, CLABSI, and A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, Enterococcus spp., and P. aeruginosa were the most common causative pathogens in these infections [41]. Although the incidence varies by facility and ICU type, the most often found HAIs in our research are BSI, pneumonia, and UTI, and the most common HAI pathogens, particularly Acinetobacter and Klebsiella species, are gram-negative bacteria.

Candida parapsilosis is a prominent cause of HAIs, particularly CLABSI [42, 43]. Similar to the literature, it was the most often isolated fungus among non-albicans Candida in HAIs in our investigation. Studies have shown that C. parapsilosis colonizes the hands of hospital staff and surfaces in hospitals [44, 45]. HAIs caused by C. parapsilosis have been documented as a consequence of cross-contamination with healthcare workers’ hands [46]. Similarly, environmental surfaces were reported as an important reservoir for most nosocomial pathogens, including Acinetobacter spp. and Klebsiella spp., and this contaminated hospital environment played an important role in the increase of HAIs [47]. In our study, the frequent detection of A. baumanii (9.5–21.2%) and K. pneumoniae (16.3–22.9%) suggested insufficient environmental cleaning and disinfection. It might point to the need for more frequent cleaning of hospital surfaces as well as improved hand hygiene compliance.

AMR is now one of the most serious worldwide issues, increasing health-care expenditures and leading to treatment failure and mortality. Among pathogens found in HAI in Europea, carbapenem resistance is high, particularly in Acinetobacter species, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa [11]. Among HAI pathogens found in European ICUs, carbapenem resistance was reported in 15.2% of Klebsiella spp., 25.9% of P. aeruginosa, 63.9% of A. baumannii, and 0.8% of E. coli [9].

Carbapenem resistance 94.5–98.3% and colistin resistance 4.5–7.3% in Acinetobacter spp., carbapenem resistance 59.8–75.2% and colistin resistance 30.4–36.8% in K. pneumoniae, carbapenem resistance 51.5–66.8% and colistin resistance 4.4%-8.4% in P. aeruginosae were reported, which are the causative pathogens of the most common HAIs (BSI, pneumonia, and UTI) in our country [40]. In the 2017 annual epidemiological report of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), methicillin resistance in S. aureus was reported at 23.5%, and glycopeptide resistance in Enterococcus spp. was 9.5% in ICUs [9]. Methicillin resistance in S. aureus and glycopeptide resistance in Enterococcus spp. were shown to be greater in our research. In all ICUs, methicillin resistance in the CNS exceeds 60%. This high level of antibiotic resistance shows that regulatory steps to minimize AMR are urgently needed.

Limitations

This study has some limitations. The results we obtained from 68 hospitals are acceptable for the whole country due to the participation in our study of seven regions of Türkiye and the regulation of infection prevention and control, which has been well established in the country for 15 years. However, it is one of the limitations of our study that it constitutes approximately 4.4% of the health institutions throughout the country. Second, a self-assessment was done, and the reported data was not validated. In this study, the inability to monitor the performance of IPC applications is a limitation. Meeting official criteria (e.g., the presence of guidelines) may not necessarily reflect adherence to guidance, and the absence of formal criteria may not imply low adherence to IPC measures. Fourth, AMR data may cause variations in reported data due to changes in laboratory testing and reporting methods across centers. Fifth, although the number of centers providing data is good for country conditions, evaluations such as many stratified analyses and multivariate analyses that were considered during the statistical evaluation could not be made. Because of the reduction in the number of centers per group, the chance of type 2 errors has risen in the stratifications that may be created. Finally, the effect of the basic IPC level on HAI could not be studied because one of the two centers where a basic infection control programme was used only had an ICU for adults and the other only had an ICU for pediatric and neonatal. So, when IPCAF looked at the effect of IPC level on infection rates, the effect of HCFs with a basic IPC level couldn't be looked at.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this is the first national study in a developing country with limited resources to analyze the IPC CCs and the association between IPC CCs and HAI rates. Even though IPC research in Türkiye began 50 years after that in the United States and Europe, significant progress has been achieved in establishing the CCs of IPC in the previous 15 years. Despite the high success rate of using the CCs of IPC in our research, HAIs in ICUs remain significant despite a reduction. HAIs are concerning because they contribute to the spread of AMR and threaten patient safety. According to the study's findings, the most pressing issue seems to be a shortage of nurses. HAIs can be significantly prevented by bringing the number of nurses to ideal ratios and reducing the workload in ICUs. In hospitals, the number of certified infection control doctors and nurses should be idealized, and their training should be updated. It is recommended to plan studies that will measure the effect of future interventions on the subject. When all ICUs for adult, pediatric, and neonatal were looked at, it was found that the most common DA-HAI was CLABSI, the most common NDA-HAI was BSI, and the most commonly isolated pathogens from HAI were gram-negative bacteria. It has been reported that resistance rates are high in these microorganisms. Therefore, the “Antimicrobial Stewardship Programme" should be launched nationally.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets in the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AMR:

Antimicrobial resistance

AMS:

Antimicrobial stewardship

BSI:

Blood stream infections

CA-UTI:

Catheter-associated urinary tract infection

CC:

Core component

CDC:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CH:

City hospital

CLABSI:

Central line- associated blood stream infections

CNS:

Coagulase negative staphylococci

COVID-19:

Coronavirus disease 2019

DA-HAI:

Device- associated health care-associated infection

ECDC:

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

EKMUD:

Türkiye Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Specialization Association

HAI:

Health care-associated infection

HAIs:

Health care-associated infections

HCFs:

Health care facilities

ICC:

Infection control committee

ICU:

Intensive care unit

IQR:

Interquartile range

IPC:

Infection prevention and control

IPCAF:

Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework

IT:

Information technology

LMICs:

Low- and middle-income countries

NDA-HAI:

Non-device- associated health care-associated infection

NHSN:

National Healthcare Safety Network

PH:

Private hospital

SD:

Standard deviation

SH:

State hospital

SSI:

Surgical site infection

TRH:

Training and research hospital

TRNC:

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

UH:

University hospital

UTI:

Urinary tract infection

VAE:

Ventilator-associated event

VAP:

Ventilator-associated pneumonia

WHO:

World health organization

References

  1. Schwendimann R, Blatter C, Dhaini S, Simon M, Ausserhofer D. The occurrence, types, consequences and preventability of in-hospital adverse events – a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):521.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Global report on infection prevention and control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

  3. Haque M, Sartelli M, McKimm J, Abu BM. Health care-associated infections—an overview. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:2321–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Suentens C, Latour K, Kärki T, et al. Prevalence of healthcare-associated infections, estimated incidence and composite antimicrobial resistance index in acute care hospitals and long-term care facilities: results from two European point prevalence surveys, 2016 to 2017. Euro Surveill. 2018;23(46):1800516.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Liu X, Spencer A, Long Y, Greenhalgh C, Steeg S, Verma A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of disease burden of healthcare-associated infections in China: an economic burden perspective from general hospitals. J Hosp Infect. 2022;123:1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cassini A, Högberg LD, Plachouras D, et al. Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the EU and the European Economic Area in 2015: a population-level modelling analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):56–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Allegranzi B, Nejad SB, Combescure C, Graafmans W, Attar H, Donaldson L, Pittet D. Burden of endemic health-care-associated infection in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2011;377:228–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Antimicrobial resistance in the EU/EEA (EARS-Net)-Annual Epidemiological Report for 2019. Eur Cent Dis Prev Control 2020. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/ publications-data/surveillance-antimicrobial-resistance-europe-2019. Accessed Jun 19, 2022.

  9. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Healthcare-associated infections acquired in intensive care units. In: ECDC. Annual epidemiological report for 2017. Stockholm: ECDC; 2019. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/healthcare-associated-infections-intensive-care-units-annual-epidemiological-1. Accessed 31 January 2022.

  10. Blot S, Ruppé E, Harbarth S, et al. Healthcare-associated infections in adult intensive care unit patients: changes in epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention and contributions of new technologies. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2022;70: 103227.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. WHO Regional Office for Europe/European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance in Europe 2022 – 2020 data. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2022. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/antimicrobial-resistance-surveillance-europe-2022-2020-data. Accessed 1 September 2022.

  12. Erdem I, Yıldırım I, Safak B, et al. A 5-year surveillance of healthcare-associated infections in a university hospital: a retrospective analysis. SAGE Open Med. 2022;10:20503121221091788.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Omari A, Al Mutair A, Alhumaid S, Salih S, Alanazi A, Albarsan H, Abourayan M, Al SM. The impact of antimicrobial stewardship program implementation at four tertiary private hospitals: results of a five-years pre-post analysis. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020;9(1):95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Haley RW, Culver DH, White JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;121:182–205.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. World Health Organization. Guidelines on core components of infection prevention and control programmes at the national and acute health care facility level. World Health Organization;2016. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/251730. Accessed 12 Jun 2022.

  16. WHO. Minimum requirements for infection prevention and control programmes. 2019. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516945. Accessed 31 January 2022.

  17. WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework at the facility level (IPCAF). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HIS-SDS-2018.9. Accessed 31 January 2022.

  18. Klompas M, Baker MA, Rhee C, et al. A SARS-CoV-2 cluster in an acute care hospital. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:794–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Storr J, Twyman A, Zingg W, et al. Core components for effective infection prevention and control programmes: new WHO evidence-based recommendations. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017;6:6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Infection Control Regulation of Inpatient Treatment Institutions. Official Gazette (2005/Issue: 25903; Modification: 25 June 2011/Issue: 27975). (In Türkiye).

  21. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Halk Sağlığı Genel Müdürlüğü Bulaşıcı Hastalıklar ve Erken Uyarı Dairesi Başkanlığı, https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/bulasici-hastaliklar/shie/shie-liste/shie.html. Accessed 11 October 2022.

  22. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Halk Sağlığı Genel Müdürlüğü. Türkı̇ye Sağlık Hı̇zmetı̇ ı̇le İlı̇şkı̇lı̇ Enfeksı̇yonları Önleme ve Kontrol Programı 2019 – 2024. Sağlık Bakanlığı Yayın No: 1139, Ankara, 2019. www.hsgm.saglik.gov.tr. Accessed 11 October 2022.

  23. Gozel MG, Hekimoglu CH, Gozel EY, Batir E, McLaws ML, Mese EA. National infection control program in Türkiye: the healthcare associated infection rate experiences over 10 years. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(7):885–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık Bilgi Sistemleri Genel Müdürlüğü. Sağlık İstatistikleri Yıllığı 2020 Haber Bülteni. 2021. https://sbsgm.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/41611/0/haber-bulteni-2020pdf.pdf.

  25. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Patient Safety Component Manual, January 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/pcsmanual_current.pdf.

  26. Tomczyk S, Twyman A, de Kraker MEA, et al. The first WHO global survey on infection prevention and control in health-care facilities. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(6):845–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Aghdassi SJS, Hansen S, Bischoff P, Behnke M, Gastmeier P. A national survey on the implementation of key infection prevention and control structures in German hospitals: results from 736 hospitals conducting the WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework (IPCAF). Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Aghdassi SJS, Grisold A, Wechsler-Fördös A, et al. Evaluating infection prevention and control programs in Austrian acute care hospitals using the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020;9:92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Savul S, Lalani FK, Ikram A, Khan MA, Khan MA, Ansari J. Infection prevention and control situation in public hospitals of Islamabad. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2020;14(9):1040–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Oppong TB, Amponsem-Boateng C, Kyere EKD, et al. Infection prevention and control preparedness level and associated determinants in 56 acute healthcare facilities in Ghana. Infect Drug Resist. 2020;13:4263–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Guideline for isolation precautions: Preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings 2007. CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/isolation-guidelines-H.pdf.

  32. Hammoud S, et al. Patient education on infection control: a systematic review. Am J Infect Control. 2020;48:1506–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Park JY, Pardosi JF, Seale H. Examining the inclusion of patients and their family members in infection prevention and control policies and guidelines across Bangladesh, Indonesia, and South Korea. Am J Infect Control. 2020;48(6):599–608.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Hammoud S, Amer F, Kocsis B. Examining the effect of infection prevention and control awareness among nurses on patient and family education: a cross-sectional study. Nurs Health Sci. 2022;24(1):140–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12905. (Epub 2021 Dec 21 PMID: 34792859).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hugonnet S, Chevrolet JC, Pittet D. The effect of workload on infection risk in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(1):76–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hugonnet S, Villaveces A, Pittet D. Nurse staffing level and nosocomial infections: empirical evaluation of the case-crossover and case-time-control designs. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(11):1321–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kaba HEJ, Scheithauer S. Estimating the effect of practicing nursing professionals density on cumulative carbapenem-resistance prevalence in gram-negative invasive Isolates: a 30 European country observational modeling study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2022;11:41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhu N, Rawson TM, Mookerjee S, et al. Changing patterns of bloodstream infections in the community and acute care across two COVID-19 epidemic waves: a retrospective analysis using data linkage. Clin Infect Dis. 2021:ciab869.

  39. Saied W, Martin-Loeches I, Timsit JF. What is new in non-ventilated ICU-acquired pneumonia? Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(3):488–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Turkish Public Health Institution of Türkiye. Ulusal Sağlık Hizmeti, İlişkili Enfeksiyonlar Sürveyans Ağı (USHIESA) Özet Raporu. In Turkish. Haziran 2021. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr. Accessed 31 Agust 2022.

  41. Yılmaz Aydın F, Aydın E. Evaluation of hospital acquired infections in the tertiary intensive care unit: a three-year analysis. J Health Sci Med. 2022;5(1):321–5.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Villalobos JM, Castro JA, Avilés A, Peláez MC, Somogyi T, Sandoval L. Candida parapsilosis: a major cause of bloodstream infection in a tertiary care hospital in Costa Rica. Rev Chil Infectol. 2016;33(2):159–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Martini C, Torelli R, Groot T, et al. Prevalence and clonal distribution of azole-resistant Candida parapsilosis isolates causing bloodstream infections in a large Italian hospital. Front Cellul Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:232.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bonassoli LA, Bertoli M, Svidzinski TI. High frequency of Candida parapsilosis on the hands of healthy hosts. J Hosp Infect. 2005;59:159–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Da Silva EM, Sciuniti Benites Mansano E, de Souza Bonfim-Mendonça P, Olegário R, Tobaldini-Valério F, Fiorini A, Svidzinski TIE. High colonization by Candida parapsilosis sensu stricto on hands and surfaces in an adult intensive care unit. J Mycol Med. 2021;31(2):101110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hernández-Castro R, Arroyo-Escalante S, Carrillo-Casas EM, et al. Outbreak of Candida parapsilosis in a neonatal intensive care unit: a health care workers source. Eur J Pediatr. 2020;169:783–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Facciolà A, Pellicanò GF, Visalli G, et al. The role of the hospital environment in the healthcare-associated infections: a general review of the literature. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019;23(3):1266–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all hospitals that participated in the study and all infection control nurses who supported the research at these institutions.

Author details of Turkish Hospital Infection Research Group''(Listed alphabetically): Ali Seydi Alpay (Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Alanya Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Alanya, Türkiye), Arzu Altuncekic Yildirim (Ordu University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ordu, Türkiye); Asli Vatan (Sakarya University, Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Sakarya, Türkiye); Aysun Yahsi (Ankara City Pediatric Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Türkiye); Ayse Kaya Kalem (Ankara City Oncology Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Türkiye); Ayse Sagmak Tartar (Firat University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Elaziğ, Türkiye); Aysegul Tuna (Kars Harakani State Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Kars, Türkiye); Banu Karaca (Izmir Kâtip Celebi University, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Izmir, Türkiye); Belgin Coskun (Ankara City Physical Therapy Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Türkiye); Burcu Gonulal (Baskent University Ankara Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Türkiye); Canan Demir (Bursa City Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Bursa, Türkiye); Davut Ipek (Mardin Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Mardin, Türkiye); Dilsat Tepe (Karadeniz Technical University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Trabzon, Türkiye); Duru Mıstanoglu Ozatag (Kutahya University of Health Sciences Evliya Celebi Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Kutahya, Türkiye); Edanur Sezer (Sivas Private Medicana Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Sivas, Türkiye); Emine Sehmen (Samsun Gazi State Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Samsun, Türkiye); Emine Unal Evren (University of Kyrenia Dr. Suat Gunsel Hospital, Kyrenia, Cyprus, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Türkiye); Emsal Aydın (Giresun University Faculty of Medicine Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Giresun, Türkiye); Ertugrul Guclu (Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Sakarya, Türkiye); Esma Eryilmaz Eren (Kayseri City Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Kayseri, Türkiye); Esmeray Mutlu Yilmaz (Samsun Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Samsun, Türkiye); Fatma Yilmaz Karadag (Sancaktepe Sehit Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Ferhan Kerget (Erzurum Region Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Erzurum, Türkiye); Filiz Surucu Bayar (Bandırma Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Bandırma, Türkiye); Gamze Kalin Unuvar (Erciyes University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Kayseri, Türkiye); Gulden Eser Karlıdag (University of Health Sciences, Elazig Fethi Sekin City Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Elazig, Türkiye); Gulfem Akengin Ocal (University of Health Sciences, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kırdar City Hospital, Istanbul); Gulnur Kul (Kırıkhan State Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Hatay, Türkiye); Gunes Senol (Izmir Bakirçay University, Cigli Training and Research Hospital, Izmir); Gurdal Yilmaz (Karadeniz Technical University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Trabzon, Türkiye); Haluk Erdogan (Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University Alanya Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Alanya, Türkiye); Handan Alay (Ataturk University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Erzurum, Türkiye); Hande Arslan (Baskent University Ankara Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Türkiye); Hasip Kahraman (Eskisehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Eskisehir, Türkiye); Hatun Ozturk Cerik (Sivas Numune Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Sivas, Türkiye); Hulya Caskurlu (Istanbul Medeniyet University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Ilknur Erdem (Namik Kemal University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Tekirdag, Türkiye); Ilknur Esen Yildiz (Recep Tayyip Erdogan University Faculty of Medicine Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Rize, Türkiye); Kıvanc Serefhanoglu (Medikalpark Bahcelievler Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Kubra Demir Onder (University of Health Sciences Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Antalya, Türkiye); Lutfiye Nilsun Altunal (University of Health Sciences Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Mehmet Celik (Harran University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Sanlıurfa, Türkiye); Mehmet Resat Ceylan (Harran University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Sanlıurfa, Türkiye); Merve Sefa Sayar (Bursa High Specialization Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Bursa, Türkiye); Metehan Ozen (Acibadem University Faculty of Medicine Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Disease, Istanbul, Türkiye); Muharrem Guler (Sivas Private Medicana Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Sivas, Türkiye); Mustafa Uguz (Mersin City Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Mersin, Türkiye); Mustafa Yildirim (University of Health Sciences İstanbul Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Mucahide Esra Kocoglu (Istanbul Medeniyet University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Muge Ayhan (Ankara City Hospital, General Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Türkiye); Muge Toygar Deniz (Kocaeli State Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Kocaeli, Türkiye); Nagehan Didem Sari (University of Health Sciences İstanbul Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Nazan Tuna (Namik Kemal University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Tekirdag, Türkiye); Nevin Ince (Duzce University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Duzce, Türkiye); Ozlem Bayrak (Eskisehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Eskisehir, Türkiye); Oznur Ak (Kutahya University of Health Sciences (KSBÜ) Evliya Celebi Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Kutahya, Türkiye); Ramazan Gozukuçuk (Private Hisar Intercontinental Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Recep Balik (Haydapaşa Numune Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Salih Atakan Nemli (Izmir Kâtip Celebi University Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Izmir, Türkiye); Selda Aslan (Gaziantep Cengiz Gökcek Maternity and Pediatry Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Gaziantep, Türkiye); Selma Ilkay Sahin (Taksim Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Semiha Solak Grassie (YBU Yenimahalle Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Türkiye); Serpil Unlu (Ankara City Maternity Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Türkiye); Sevil Alkan (Canakkale 18 March University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Canakkale, Türkiye); Sibel Altunisik Toplu (Inonu University, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Malatya, Türkiye); Suna Secil Ozturk Deniz (Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Denizli, Türkiye); Suheyla Komur (Cukurova University Faculty of Medicine Balcalı Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Adana, Türkiye); Suleyman Koc (Rize State Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Rize, Türkiye); Saban Incecik (Van YY University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Van, Türkiye); Tuba Yanik Yalcin (Baskent University Ankara Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Türkiye); Tuna Demirdal (Izmir Kâtip Celebi University, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Izmir, Türkiye); Turkan Tuzun (Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Denizli, Türkiye); Verda Dinar Tuna (Ministry of Health Adiyaman Training and Research Hospital, Department of Intensive Care Unit, Adıyaman, Türkiye); Yasemin Cakir (Agri Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Agri, Türkiye); Yasemin Ersozlu (Acibadem University Faculty of Medicine Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Istanbul, Türkiye); Yesim Aybar Bilir (Ankara City Cardiovascular Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Türkiye); Yesim Uygun Kizmaz (Kosuyolu High Specialization Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul, Türkiye); Yildiz Olcar (Kastamonu Training and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Kastamonu, Türkiye); Zerrin Yulugkural (Trakya University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Edirne, Türkiye).

Funding

This research was not supported by any financial resources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

EA (ALP) created the project idea. EA (AZAK), GE, GC, FE, AB, YC, ZT, DÖE, AY, SK and AC contributed to the design of the study and data collection. Statistical analysis and elaboration of figures was done by AS and EA (AZAK). EA (AZAK) wrote the the main manuscript text, with important contributions from EA(ALP), ET and JR. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emine Alp.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Non-invasive Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine evaluated and approved the research protocol (GOKAEK-2022/01.19, project number: 2022/15).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

In this study was presented as a poster presentation at the 32nd ECCMID congress, 23-26 April 2022, Lisbon, Portugal, and an oral presentation at the 10th Türkiye EKMUD Scientific Congress, 25-29 May2022, Antalya

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) Questionnaire, Turkish Version.

Additional file 2

Results of the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework in 68 participating hospitals.

Additional file 3

The features of ICUs and HAIs in ICUs, 2021.

Additional file 4

Certain IPC components are linked to health care-associated infections.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Azak, E., Sertcelik, A., Ersoz, G. et al. Evaluation of the implementation of WHO infection prevention and control core components in Turkish health care facilities: results from a WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework (IPCAF)—based survey. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 12, 11 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-023-01208-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-023-01208-0

Keywords

  • Infection prevention and control
  • IPC core components
  • Health care-associated infections
  • Antimicrobial resistance
  • Workload