Self-reported compliance with infection prevention and control of healthcare workers in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study

Compliance of healthcare workers (HCWs) with infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial to resident safety. Nevertheless, HCWs’ compliance with IPC has not been previously studied in a disability care setting. To assess levels of self-reported compliance with IPC among HCWs in residential car...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Disability and health journal Vol. 17; no. 1; p. 101542
Main Authors:	Houben, Famke, den Heijer, Casper DJ, Dukers-Muijrers, Nicole HTM, Nava, Jean-Carlos B., Theunissen, Math, van Eck, Bert, Smeets-Peels, Claudia, Hoebe, Christian JPA
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Elsevier Inc 01-01-2024
Subjects:	COVID-19 Cross-Sectional Studies Developmental disability Infection Control Intellectual Disability Long-term care COVID-19 Cross-Sectional Studies Intellectual Disability Long-term care Infection Control Developmental disability
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Compliance of healthcare workers (HCWs) with infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial to resident safety. Nevertheless, HCWs’ compliance with IPC has not been previously studied in a disability care setting. To assess levels of self-reported compliance with IPC among HCWs in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs), and to assess whether IPC compliance varies among different professional groups. A total of 285 HCWs from 16 Dutch RCFs completed an online questionnaire assessing 16 IPC procedures, following national guidelines. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests to assess potential differences in compliance between professional groups. Overall, HCWs complied on average with 68.7% of IPC. Only 30.1% of HCWs had sufficient compliance (defined as compliance with ≥80% of IPC practices). Compliance varied considerably between individual IPC procedures, in which compliance with wearing short-sleeved clothes (30.9%) and using disposable protective clothing (32.7%) were the lowest. Compliance with jewellery and hair regulations was suboptimal (45.6% and 55.4%, respectively). Non-medical professionals complied with IPC less frequently (social workers, 24.2%; behavioural specialists, 12.9%) than medical professionals (47.4%) (P<0.001). The majority of HCWs had suboptimal compliance with IPC. As IPC compliance differs between professionals, recommendations are to 1) implement tailored education and training programmes, and 2) pursue a facility-wide minimum required IPC compliance. Implementing and communicating a minimum set of IPC procedures – including hand hygiene, personal hygiene, and clothing requirements − applying to all professionals is important to minimise the infection transmission risk in RCFs for people with IDDs.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	1936-6574 1876-7583 1876-7583
DOI:	10.1016/j.dhjo.2023.101542