Mrs. Jingyi (Phoebe) Wang1
1Monash Health, Australia
Biography:
Phoebe Wang, a Clinical Nurse Consultant at Monash Health, has four years of experience in infection prevention. She holds a Master’s degree in Nursing and postgraduate qualifications in infection control and aged care. Phoebe is dedicated to reducing healthcare-associated infections by equipping clinicians with high-quality, evidence-based training.
Abstract:
Problem/Issue
Infection Prevention Liaisons (IPLs) play a vital role in promoting infection control and reducing healthcare-associated infections. Monash Health (MH) has operated an IPL program since 2003, training hundreds of staff. However, the program has never been formally evaluated in the Australian context, making its effectiveness and areas for improvement unclear.
What Was Done
To minimise disruption to clinicians’ schedules, surveys were distributed via work email to IPLs, managers, and Infection Prevention (IP) Clinical Nurse Consultants (CNCs). The questionnaires included Likert-scale, multiple-choice, and open-ended items to capture comprehensive feedback.
Results
Of the 569 surveys distributed, a 20% response rate was achieved. Despite this, responses from a range of clinical settings offered valuable insights. Among IP CNCs, 83% found IPLs effective in supporting ward-based infection prevention, though only 58% were satisfied with the training schedule, suggesting it should be more engaging. All managers viewed the role as essential but identified high workloads and limited resources as barriers, recommending more tailored training (average effectiveness rating: 3.27/5). IPLs rated monthly sessions 4.3/5 and were generally satisfied with session length but requested broader disease coverage, more practical examples, and clearer role expectations.
Conclusions
The evaluation confirmed the program’s value while highlighting areas for improvement, including the need for tailored training, flexible scheduling, and clearer role definitions.
Lessons Learnt
The lack of prior evaluation limited the project’s initial design. While the feedback provided valuable insights, the low response rate may introduce bias, reflecting a more engaged or motivated subgroup.