ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2026
Feasibility of the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework in long-term care facilities: a pilot study in the Netherlands.
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.