Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Infect Control. 2019 Jan 5. pii: S0196-6553(18)31099-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2018.11.010. [Epub ahead of print]

Current practice of infection control in Dutch primary care: Results of an online survey.

Author information

1
Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: nataliyahilt@hotmail.com.
2
Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
3
National Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
4
Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
5
Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; REshape Center for Innovation, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Good infection prevention is an important aspect of quality of medical care. The aim was to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) performance among Dutch general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS:

Based on the current national IPC guidelines for GPs, a self-administered anonymous online questionnaire was developed and sent to GPs in the Nijmegen region of the Netherlands. Thirty-two questions were constructed to survey characteristics of GPs' offices and assess current performance of IPC measures.

RESULTS:

One hundred questionnaires were included in our analysis. The preferred method of hand hygiene was soap and water (56%) versus alcohol-based handrub (44%). The cleaning of nondisposable, noncritical, semicritical, and critical instruments was consistent with national guideline recommendations or superior to them in 100%, 49%, and 97% of cases, respectively. An average of 57% of GPs reported environmental cleaning frequencies that were compliant with the national guidelines or superior to them. Personal protective equipment was available in 62% of GPs' practices but used in only 25% of home visits to patients.

CONCLUSIONS:

Not all national IPC guidelines seem to be followed to the fullest extent. The current situation indicates there is room for potential improvement regarding implementation of IPC measures in GPs' offices. Area-specific guidelines and continuous medical education regarding IPC may help improve the situation.

KEYWORDS:

Environmental cleaning; General practitioners; Hand hygiene; Health care–associated infections; Infection prevention and control; Personal protective equipment

PMID:
30616933
DOI:
10.1016/j.ajic.2018.11.010

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center