Barriers and facilitators to infection prevention and control in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A theory-informed qualitative study
<h4>Background</h4> Care institutions are recognised to be a high-risk setting for the emergence and spread of infections and antimicrobial-resistant organisms, which stresses the importance of infection prevention and control (IPC). Accurate implementation is crucial for optimal IPC pra...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/6380052a730446f49a167b8703c5c8f5 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | <h4>Background</h4> Care institutions are recognised to be a high-risk setting for the emergence
and spread of infections and antimicrobial-resistant organisms, which
stresses the importance of infection prevention and control (IPC). Accurate
implementation is crucial for optimal IPC practice. Despite the wide
promotion of IPC and research thereof in the hospital and nursing home
setting, similar efforts are lacking in disability care settings. Therefore,
this study aimed to assess perceived barriers and facilitators to IPC among
professionals working at residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), as well as to identify
professional-reported recommendations to improve IPC. <h4>Methods</h4> This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews (before COVID-19)
with twelve professionals from five Dutch RCFs for people with IDD. An
integrated theoretical approach was used to inform data collection and
analysis. Thematic analysis using inductive and deductive approaches was
conducted. This study followed the COnsolidated criteria for REporting
Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines. <h4>Results</h4> Our findings revealed barriers and facilitators at the guideline, client,
professional, professional interaction, professional client interaction,
client interaction, organisational, community, and societal level. Six main
themes covering multiple barriers and facilitators were identified: (1)
guidelines’ applicability to (work)setting; (2) professionals’ cognitions
and attitude towards IPC (related to educational background); (3)
organisational support and priority; (4) educational system; (5) time
availability and staff capacity; and (6) task division and change coaches.
The main professional-reported recommendations were the introduction of
tailored and practical IPC guidelines, structural IPC education and training
among all professionals, and client participation. <h4>Conclusions</h4> To promote IPC, multifaceted and multilevel strategies should be implemented,
with a preliminary need for improvements on the guideline, professional, and
organisational level. Given the heterogeneous character, i.e., different
professionals, clients and care needs, there is a need for a tailored
approach to implement IPC and sustain it successfully in disability care.
Our findings can inform future IPC practice improvements. |
|---|