A/Prof. Noleen Bennett1,2, Dr Leslie Dowson2, Professor Karin Thursky2, Assoc/Prof Janet Sluggett3, Dr Ann Bull1, Assoc/Prof Leon Worth1
1VICNISS Coordinating Centre, Melbourne, Australia, 2National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Melbourne, Australia, 3UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide, Australia
Biography:
Noleen Bennett is an IPC consultant, employed at VICNISS (Victorian Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance System) and NCAS (National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship). She oversees the (1) Victorian Aged Care Infection Indicator Program, (2) Aged Care National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey, and (3) National Infection Surveillance Program for Aged Care research project.
Abstract:
Introduction
The National Infection Surveillance Program for Aged Care (NISPAC) was developed through extensive stakeholder consultation. Ten surveillance domains were included as options for participating residential aged care homes (RACHs), structured as modules spanning staff and resident vaccinations, significant organism infections, urinary tract infection (UTI) and antimicrobial use. Our study objective was to evaluate pilot RACH feedback.
Method
Sixty-four pilot RACHs were invited to complete an evaluation poll (Microsoft Teams) at a scheduled online forum. Structured questions (n = 36) were posed regarding participation level, support services, data collection, specific modules, time commitment and future programs. Pilot RACHs not represented were later invited to complete a REDcap online survey (same questions).
Results
Twenty-four respondents representing 34 pilot RACHs (53.1%) completed the poll or survey. One quarter (25.0%) of these RACHs had no formal EFT allocation for infection prevention and control (IPC) activities. Most respondent RACHs confirmed that the NISPAC program (44.0%) or some constituent modules (45.8%) should be part of their regular IPC program. Staff vaccination (47.8%) and UTI (33.3%) modules were reported as the most and least important, respectively. Significant organism (33.3%) and UTI (39.1%) modules were reported as most easy and difficult to complete, respectively. Future domains of interest included respiratory pathogen surveillance (66.7%) and hand hygiene adherence (54.2%).
Conclusion
Evaluating an infection surveillance program is crucial to ensure feasibility and sustainability, ultimately improving health outcomes and resource allocation. Our pilot evaluation of NISPAC has identified priority and feasible domains, with scope for future development in program implementation.