Ultrasonic cleaners in dental decontamination

Diversity equity and Inclusion: To advance infection prevention and control efforts, nursing assistants need to be given the opportunity to dance

BackgroundCritical Access Hospitals (CAH) may face challenges with limited resources in their infection prevention and control (IPC) program. As part of the Project Firstline collaborative, the University of Nebraska Medical Center and its clinical partner Nebraska Medicine sought to identify needs and develop resources to mitigate IPC program gaps in small and rural hospitals, including CAHs. Since, little is known about the resources needed by CAHs to strengthen their IPC program, a needs assessment survey was deployed to Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VII CAHs.MethodsA 49-question Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) survey was distributed via email to infection preventionists in Region VII CAHs. The survey had 4 sections with questions focused on IPC program infrastructure, competency-based training, audit and feedback, and identification and isolation of high-risk pathogens/serious communicable diseases. An IPC practice score was assigned to each CAH by totaling “yes” responses. A “no” or “not sure” response was considered an IPC gap. Respondents who selected “no” were asked to identify resources that would assist in mitigating identified gaps. Descriptive analyses evaluated frequency of gaps and most cited resources. Welch t-test was used to study differences in IPC practice score between states.Results50 CAHs (33 in NE, 16 in IA and 1 in KS) and 1 small NE hospital (not licensed as CAH but included in the analyses as CAH) participated in the survey. Majority (n=38) responded to all sections with IPC scores ranging from 13 to 48. There was no significant difference between IPC practice scores of CAHs in NE and IA (average score 33 vs 36; p = 0.38). Specific IPC practice gaps present in > 50% of CAHs were related to audit and feedback practices (Table 1). Additional gaps included lack of drug diversion program, absence of input from IPC team prior to purchasing equipment and failure to conduct risk assessment for the laboratory. Most CAHs cited a standardized audit tool and staff training materials as much needed resources (Table 1).Table 1. Needs/Resources for the identified Infection Prevention and Control Gaps.ConclusionMajor IPC gaps exist in CAHs with many of them related to implementing audit and feedback practices that are an essential component of a successful IPC program. Focus should be directed on developing resources to mitigate identified IPC gaps.DisclosuresM. Salman Ashraf, MBBS, Merck & Co. Inc (Grant/Research Support, I have recieved grant funding for an investigator initiated research project from Merck & Con. Inc. However, I do not see any direct conflict of interest related to the submitted abstract)

BackgroundHospital infection prevention and control (IPC) depends on consistent practice to achieve its purpose. Standard precautions are embedded in modern healthcare policies, but not uniformly observed by all clinicians. Well-documented differences in attitudes to IPC, between doctors and nurses, contribute to suboptimal IPC practices and persistence of preventable healthcare-associated infections. The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected healthcare professionals’ work-practices, lives and health and increased awareness and observance of IPC. Successful transition of health services to a ‘post-COVID-19’ future, will depend on sustainable integration of lessons learnt into routine practice.MethodsThe aim of this pre-COVID-19 qualitative study was to investigate factors influencing doctors’ IPC attitudes and practices, whether they differ from those of nurses and, if so, how this affects interprofessional relationships. We hypothesised that better understanding would guide new strategies to achieve more effective IPC. We interviewed 26 senior clinicians (16 doctors and 10 nurses) from a range of specialties, at a large Australian tertiary hospital. Interview transcripts were reviewed iteratively, and themes identified inductively, using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants from both professions painted clichéd portraits of ‘typical’ doctors and nurses and recounted unflattering anecdotes of their IPC behaviours. Doctors were described as self-directed and often unaware or disdainful of IPC rules; while nurses were portrayed as slavishly following rules, ostensibly to protect patients, irrespective of risk or evidence. Many participants believed that doctors object to being reminded of IPC requirements by nurses, despite many senior doctors having limited knowledge of correct IPC practice. Overall, participants’ comments suggested that the ‘doctor-nurse game’—described in the 1960s, to exemplify the complex power disparity between professions—is still in play, despite changes in both professions, in the interim.ConclusionsThe results suggest that interprofessional differences and inconsistencies constrain IPC practice improvement. IPC inconsistencies and failures can be catastrophic, but the common threat of COVID-19 has promoted focus and unity. Appropriate implementation of IPC policies should be context-specific and respect the needs and expertise of all stakeholders. We propose an ethical framework to guide interprofessional collaboration in establishing a path towards sustained improvements in IPC and bio-preparedness.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) is critical in neonatal units to prevent healthcare-associated infections, yet research on IPC has primarily focused on healthcare workers, overlooking the role of family caregivers. In low-resource settings, mothers often take on essential caregiving responsibilities including IPC-related tasks, both a logistic necessity and a cultural norm, but their perspectives and experiences remain underexplored. This qualitative descriptive study aimed to explore mothers' experiences and perceptions of IPC in a neonatal unit in Gaborone, Botswana. Understanding maternal involvement in IPC is essential for developing effective interventions, particularly in settings where health systems face workforce shortages and resource constraints. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers of infants admitted to the neonatal unit between June and December 2022. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Six themes were identified. Major themes related to (1) mothers' strong sense of responsibility for IPC and concerns about infection risks, (2) health system constraints (including supply shortages) that limited consistent IPC practice, (3) competing demands within restricted visiting times that required mothers to balance IPC with feeding and bonding, (4) variable communication with health care workers (HCWs) and limited comfort reminding staff about IPC, and (5) peer dynamics between mothers, including mutual reminders as well as tensions arising from shared feeding equipment. A minor theme that emerged was (6) mothers' emotional distress and its perceived impact on remembering and enacting IPC behaviours. Overall, mothers described high motivation to protect their infants but reported that time pressures, insufficient communication with HCWs, and resource limitations constrained IPC adherence, underscoring the need for structured IPC orientation and ongoing support for families in neonatal care. Mothers in this neonatal unit viewed themselves as key partners in IPC and were highly motivated to protect their infants, but their ability to consistently follow IPC practices was constrained by limited supplies, staffing pressures, restricted time for caregiving and bonding, and variable communication with HCWs. Mothers also expressed concerns about HCW adherence to IPC and described how emotional distress and peer dynamics could shape IPC behaviour. These findings underscore the need for structured IPC education and support for mothers in neonatal units, and the importance of integrating family-centred IPC policies into neonatal care. Future research should evaluate interventions that strengthen caregiver support, improve communication, and address contextual barriers and constraints to sustained IPC practice.

BackgroundThe unique characteristics of psychiatric institutions contribute to the onset and spread of infectious agents. Infection prevention and control (IPC) is essential to minimise transmission and manage outbreaks effectively. Despite abundant studies regarding IPC conducted in hospitals, to date only a few studies focused on mental health care settings. However, the general low compliance to IPC in psychiatric institutions is recognised as a serious concern. Therefore, this study aimed to assess perceived barriers and facilitators to IPC among professionals working at psychiatric institutions, and to identify recommendations reported by professionals to improve IPC.MethodsA descriptive, qualitative study involving 16 semi-structured interviews was conducted (before COVID-19) among professionals from five Dutch psychiatric institutions. The interview guide and data analysis were informed by implementation science theories, and explored guideline, individual, interpersonal, organisational, and broader environment barriers and facilitators to IPC. Data was subjected to thematic analysis, using inductive and deductive approaches. This study followed the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines.ResultsOur findings generated six main themes: (1) patients’ non-compliance (strongly related to mental illness); (2) professionals’ negative cognitions and attitude towards IPC and IPC knowledge deficits; (3) monitoring of IPC performance and mutual professional feedback; (4) social support from professional to patient; (5) organisational support and priority; and (6) financial and material resource limitations (related to financial arrangements regarding mental health services). The main recommendations reported by professionals included: (1) to increase awareness towards IPC among all staff members, by education and training, and the communication of formal agreements as institutional IPC protocols; (2) to make room for and facilitate IPC at the organisational level, by providing adequate IPC equipment and appointing a professional responsible for IPC.ConclusionsIPC implementation in psychiatric institutions is strongly influenced by factors on the patient, professional and organisational level. Professional interaction and professional-patient interaction appeared to be additional important aspects. Therefore, a multidimensional approach should be adopted to improve IPC. To coordinate this approach, psychiatric institutions should appoint a professional responsible for IPC. Moreover, a balance between mental health care and IPC needs is required to sustain IPC.

In April 2022, the Ministry of Long-Term Care (LTC) in Ontario, Canada released the infection prevention and control (IPAC) standard as part of the requirements under a new legislation referred to as the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021. This was enacted to address gaps in the sector that were exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main aspect of the infection prevention and control (IPAC) standard within the Act, requires each long-term care home (LTCH) to have an IPAC lead whose primary responsibility is the home’s IPAC program. As part of the regulation, every licensee shall ensure that the IPAC Lead works regularly in that position on-site at the home for at least the following minimum hours based on the licensed bed capacity: for homes with a licensed bed capacity of 69 beds or fewer at least 17.5 hours per week; for homes with a licensed bed capacity of more than 69 beds but fewer than 200 beds, at least 26.25 hours per week; for homes with a licensed bed capacity of 200 beds or more, at least 35 hours per week (FLTCA 2021). Section 102 (7) of the regulation further elaborates on the broad responsibilities of the IPAC lead including: working with the interdisciplinary IPAC team to implement the IPAC program; managing and overseeing the program; overseeing the delivery of IPAC education to all staff, caregivers, volunteers, visitors, and residents; and auditing of IPAC practices in the home. In meeting regulatory compliance, most homes in the province of Ontario are now basing their staffing of the IPAC lead position solely on the minimum hours required under the regulation. There is no doubt that, historically, the ratio of infection control professionals (ICPs) in acute care settings has been tied to inpatient beds with no regard on the variability in facility complexity. For example, the Study of the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) in the United States that evaluated the nosocomial IPAC programs from 1970 to 1976 recommended 1 infection control nurse per 250 beds (Haley et al, 1985). Another study suggested a ratio of 0.8 – 1.0 ICP per 100 occupied acute care beds (O’Boyle et., 2002) and a more recent study that aggregated data across organizations recommended a new benchmark of 1.0 ICP full-time equivalent per 69 beds if ambulatory, LTC, or home care are included (Bartles et al, 2018).

Background: The 2022 WHO global survey on infection prevention and control (IPC) exposes significant gaps in IPC in the WHO Southeast Asia region. A better understanding of IPC vulnerabilities will inform improvement initiatives. We describe an evaluation of IPC practices known to prevent and contain carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) at hospitals participating in the United States Centers for Disease Control Global Action in Healthcare Network –Antimicrobial Resistance in India. Prior hospital evaluations suggest resistance to carbapenems among gram-negative isolates is up to 45%. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation including cross-sectional surveys, semi-structured interviews, and site observations at five hospitals (one government, two private tertiary care, and two private teaching) located in three cities. The number of hospital beds ranged from 362 to 2,011. Hospital and IPC program characteristics, and CRO prevention and containment activities were examined virtually. Site observations focused on hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, personal protective equipment (PPE), CRO containment practices and use of water for patient care. Results: All sites had IPC programs with established policies and qualified IPC staff. The IPC nurse-to-bed ratio ranged from 1:73 to 1:432 (mean, 1:209). Due to the integral role of microbiology staff in IPC at these hospitals, the two departments had strong communication channels associated with CRO identification. Screening for CRO colonization, if done, targeted patients from outside hospitals. Three of the five hospitals routinely implemented contact precautions for patients with identified CROs, displayed isolation signage at the bedside, and provided adequate PPE at point-of-use; however, all sites reported barriers to effective isolation and/or cohorting patients with CROs. Timely communication of CROs to clinical staff varied and no sites effectively relayed CRO status upon patient discharge to another facility. IPC teams identified gaps in environmental cleaning procedures and practices related to medical devices and equipment. All sites used alternatives to tap water for clinical care and sink etiquette was evident. Each IPC team performed audits of patient isolation and hand hygiene practices. Despite the considerable proportion of IPC resources dedicated to daily education and feedback in clinical areas, the IPC teams reported that improvement was often difficult to achieve. Conclusion: Given the high burden of CROs and limited IPC resources, detailed knowledge of IPC opportunities for improvement will help hospitals target novel interventions for CRO prevention and containment. Further investigation of colonization rates and effective performance improvement methods in these settings is needed.Disclosure: Patricia Simner: Research Contracts: BD Diagnostics, OpGen Inc., Qiagen Sciences Inc, T2 Diagnostics, Accelerate Diagnostics; Research Collaborators:Ares Genetics, CosmosID, IDbyDNA, Illumina; Consulting: OpGen Inc., BD Diagnostics, Shionogi Inc., GeneCapture, Qiagen Sciences Inc, Entasis, Day Zero Diagnostics, Next Gen Diagnostics

BackgroundHospital-acquired infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are major global health challenges. Drug-resistant infectious diseases continue to rise in developing countries, driven by shortfalls in infection control measures, antibiotic misuse, and scarcity of reliable diagnostics. These escalating global challenges have highlighted the importance of strengthening fundamental infection prevention and control (IPC) measures and implementing effective antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP). This study aims to present a framework for enhancing IPC measures and ASP efforts to reduce the HAI and AMR burden in Bangladesh.MethodsThis implementation approach will employ a mixed-methods strategy, combining both quantitative and qualitative data from 12 tertiary hospitals in Bangladesh. A baseline assessment will be conducted using the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) developed by the WHO. We will record IPC practices through direct observations of hand hygiene, personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization, and hospital ward IPC infrastructure. Additionally, data on healthcare providers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding IPC and antibiotic prescribing will be collected using both structured questionnaires and qualitative interviews. We will also assist the hospital leadership with establishing and/or strengthening IPC and ASP committees. Based on baseline assessments of each healthcare facility, tailored interventions and quality improvement projects will be designed and implemented. An end-line assessment will also be conducted after 12 months of intervention using the same assessment tools. The findings will be compared with the baseline to determine changes in IPC and antibiotic stewardship practices.DiscussionComprehensive assessments of healthcare facilities in low-resource settings are crucial for strengthening IPC measures and ASP activities,. This approach to assessing existing IPC and ASP activities will provide policy-relevant data for addressing current shortfalls. Moreover, this framework proposes identifying institutionally-tailored solutions, which will ensure that response activities are appropriately contextualized, aligned with stakeholder priorities, and offer sustainable solutions.ConclusionFindings from this study can guide the design and implementation of feasible and sustainable interventions in resource-constrained healthcare settings to address gaps in existing IPC and ASP activities. Therefore, this protocol will be applicable across a broad range of settings to improve IPC and ASP and reduce the burden of hospital-acquired infections and AMR.

BackgroundCompliance 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. ObjectiveTo 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. MethodsA 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. ResultsOverall, 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). ConclusionsThe 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.

Background: In June 2019, 3 people were diagnosed with Ebola virus disease (EVD) in Kasese district, Uganda, all of whom had come from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Although no secondary transmission of Ebola occurred, an assessment of infection prevention and control (IPC) using the WHO basic IPC facility assessment checklist revealed significant gaps. Robust IPC systems are critical for the prevention of healthcare-associated infections like EVD. A rapid intervention was developed and implemented in Kasese to strengthen IPC capacity in high-risk facilities. Methods: Of 117 healthcare facilities, 50 were considered at high risk of receiving suspected EVD cases from DRC based on population movement assessments. In August 2019, IPC mentors were selected from 25 high-risk facilities and assigned to support their facility and a second high-risk facility. Mentors ensured formation of IPC committees and implemented the national mentorship strategy for IPC preparedness in non-EVD treatment facilities. This effort focused on screening, isolation, and notification of suspect cases: 4 mentorship visits were conducted (1 per week for 1 month). Middle and terminal assessments were conducted using the WHO IPC checklist 2 and 4 weeks after the intervention commenced. Results were evaluated against baseline data. Results: Overall, 39 facilities had data from baseline, middle, and end assessments. Median scores in facility IPC standard precautions increased from baseline 50% (IQR, 39%–62%) to 73% (IQR, 67%–76%) at the terminal assessments. Scores increased for all measured parameters except for water source (access to running water). Greatest improvements were seen in formation of IPC committees (41% to 75%), hand hygiene compliance (47% to 86%), waste management (51% to 83%), and availability of dedicated isolation areas (16% to 42%) for suspect cases. Limited improvement was noted for training on management of suspect isolated cases and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) (Fig. 1). No differences were noted in scores for facilities with nonresident mentors versus those with resident mentors at baseline (48% vs 50%) and end assessments (72% vs 74%). Conclusions: This intervention improved IPC capacity in health facilities while avoiding the cost and service disruption associated with large-scale classroom-based training of health workers. The greatest improvements were seen in activities relying on behavior change, such as hand hygiene, IPC committee, and waste management. Smaller changes were seen in areas requiring significant investments such as isolation areas, steady water source, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE). Mentorship is ongoing in moderate- and lower-risk facilities in Kasese district.Funding: NoneDisclosures: Mohammed Lamorde reports contract research for Janssen Pharmaceutica, ViiV, Mylan.

Background: Healthcare contributes significantly to waste production and greenhouse gas emissions. This became especially apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet there is modest recognition of this issue, particularly within decision-making in Infection Prevention and Control (IPC). The aim of our study was to gauge general knowledge and attitudes of hospital epidemiologists (HEs) and infection preventionists (IPs) around the intersection of environmental sustainability and IPC, and to identify related institutional practices. Methods: An online survey, composed of ten questions related to environmental sustainability in IPC, was created and emailed to members of the SHEA Research Network (SRN), a national consortium of healthcare facilities collaborating on IPC research, from August - October 2023. Survey answers were collated via Redcap© and descriptive results were obtained. Results: Forty-two individuals (33 HEs, 7 directors of IPC, and 2 IPs) from unique institutions completed the survey. Thirty (71.4%) were from academic medical centers, 5 (11.9%) were from VA medical centers and 7 (16.7%) were from community hospitals. Over half of participants correctly estimated the amount of waste and carbon emissions produced annually by the US healthcare system (6 million tons and 8.5% of national emissions, respectively). However, only 42.9% considered environmental sustainability concerns important or very important when making IPC decisions. Fifteen (34.9%) had an environmental sustainability committee at their institution and of these, 8 had an established relationship with the IPC department. The most common techniques to promote sustainability amongst institutions were water/energy conservation (59.5%), reusable personal protective equipment (52.4%) and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification (47.6%). When asked which efforts they would support at their institution, 28.6% would eliminate the use of single-use endoscopes and one third would avoid use of ethylene oxide for sterilization. In deciding whether to support environmental sustainability measures, key considerations participants articulated were patient safety concerns, knowledge about effectiveness and costs, and administrative support. Conclusion: Although there is growing awareness around the contribution of the healthcare industry to carbon emissions and waste production, IPC professionals have not yet universally adopted measures to promote environmental sustainability. In our survey, many participants acknowledged the importance of balancing patient safety and sustainability concerns. Our study demonstrates the need for more research and education to inform decisions around environmentally sustainable efforts in IPC that also preserve patient safety. Additionally, professional and regulatory bodies must acknowledge and promote the importance of environmental sustainability in IPC decision-making.

Transitioning an Infection Prevention and Control Program to a New Outpatient Hospital-Based Cancer Center

The Texas Epidemic Public Health Institute (TEPHI) aims to safeguard public health and the Texas economy by preparing for infectious disease outbreaks. The Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Webinar series was created to offer free educational resources and continuing education for public health and healthcare personnel responsible for IPC programs in rural regions of Texas. The IPC 200 Series succeeds the founding IPC 100 Series established by the TEPHI Small Rural Healthcare Preparedness. IPC registration and attendance data were collected through WebEx® and Microsoft Teams®, which also served as the platforms for module delivery. Learning assessments and post-module evaluation surveys were administered using QuestionPro®. Module content was developed using resources adapted from the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), The Joint Commission (TJC), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The Kirkpatrick Model assessed knowledge effectiveness through knowledge activities, post-evaluations, and a completion impact survey. IPC 200 Series had 1,088 attendees to live modules and generated >4,400 YouTube views. Each module was accredited for 1.0 hour of public health education and IPC certification (a-IPC), with eight of ten sessions offering 1.0 continuing education hours for certification in infection control (CIC) for infection preventionists. Of 286 participants completing post-knowledge assessments, the average score was 91.0% (Range: 81.0-96.0%). Post-evaluations (n = 271) rated the content highly (mean: 4.8/5.0) for beneficial, easy to understand, and clear/concise. Additionally, 90.4% of respondents indicated plans to implement the knowledge gained, and 98.9% expressed interest in attending future sessions. IPC series improved participants' knowledge of infection prevention and control best practices. By disseminating evidence-based education and providing no-cost continuing education, the series equipped healthcare personnel with the tools to foster safer environments for patients and staff in healthcare settings.

BackgroundThe World Health Organization’s Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) is widely used to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) quality in hospitals, but IPC standards in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are less studied and standardized. The IPCAF has not previously been used in LTCFs. This study aimed to pilot an adapted version of the IPCAF in Dutch LTCFs to assess its usability, perceived feasibility and acceptability in this context.MethodsFirst, the IPCAF was translated and adapted to the Dutch LTCF context through expert consultation for relevance. In this pilot, the adapted IPCAF was then completed during face-to-face interviews together with a multidisciplinary team in fourteen healthcare groups between May and September 2024. Second, LTCF characteristics were collected in advance through a separate questionnaire on LTCF level. Finally, after receiving feedback reports, LTCFs completed a separate web-based survey about their experiences with the process. Data were summarized descriptively and group differences were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test. ResultsMost participants found the adapted IPCAF clear and informative, appreciating its ability to highlight areas needing attention and identify priorities for improvement. About a quarter of LTCFs expressed willingness to use the adapted IPCAF in the future, while over half were hesitant. IPC standards were generally high, with the highest scores for ‘Workload, staffing and bed occupancy’ and ‘Environments, materials and equipment for IPC’. The lowest scores were for ‘HAI surveillance’ and ‘IPC education’, with only five LTCFs including HAI surveillance in their IPC programs.ConclusionsThis is the first study to adapt the WHO IPCAF as a tool for measuring IPC in LTCFs and to evaluate its usability, perceived feasibility, and acceptability in this context. The adapted IPCAF can be implemented in LTCFs and may help identify IPC priorities and areas for improvement. However, greater familiarity and support may be needed to enable wider adoption. While IPC standards were relatively high in the LTCFs included in this pilot, ongoing attention to surveillance and education remains essential. Further research may be needed to validate our findings in larger and more diverse LTCF populations and to explore its impact on IPC outcomes.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-026-01717-8.

ObjectiveTo review the literature on caregiver involvement in infection prevention and control in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) neonatal units (NNUs).IntroductionThere is a high burden and mortality of neonatal infections globally, with most of the burden falling on LMIC. Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) are a particular challenge, with neonatal sepsis being one of the most common HCAIs. It is urgent to prevent infections, as both identification and treatment of neonatal sepsis are increasingly difficult in these contexts. Parents are consistently present on NNUs but their involvement in infection prevention and control (IPC) has been underexplored.Inclusion criteriaIncluded studies were carried out in LMIC NNUs and reported on caregivers’ involvement in design, implementation or experience of IPC interventions.MethodsFive databases were searched in four languages and were screened by two authors. Reference searching was carried out of included papers. Data were analysed by each sub-question; caregiver involvement in intervention design (descriptive analysis), caregiver involvement in IPC delivery (quantitative analysis) and caregiver experience of hygiene and care (thematic analysis).Results38 studies were included. Caregiver involvement in IPC design was limited, with examples from four papers. 30 papers contained information about caregiver delivery of IPC interventions. Most activities were related to being educated on IPC, carrying out core IPC activities or providing a specific aspect of an intervention (most frequently Kangaroo Mother Care). 10 papers discussed caregiver experience of NNU hygiene including ethnographic accounts from Ghana, Malawi, Mexico, India and Brazil. Across all contexts hierarchical social structures and challenging communication between healthcare professionals and families was a barrier to effective IPC within NNUs. Families showed a good understanding of core IPC practices and an awareness of contextual challenges of IPC.ConclusionCaregiver involvement in IPC is limited to date. However, interventions such as Kangaroo Mother Care indicate the benefits that can be achieved. Hierarchical structures and communication challenges between healthcare professionals and families are a barrier to inclusion at present and must be addressed in any designed intervention.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-025-01643-1.