I recently had the chance to talk to some students in the UK about the use of global IPC tools and resources.
The value of these, I believe, continues to be underestimated across all countries.
As an example, upon a quick search I found around 20 publications from a wide range of countries using the World Health Organization IPC assessment framework (facility level - IPCAF) - and I am pleased to be involved in another of these using a modified version of the IPCAF minimum requirements - coming soon. Core components of infection prevention and control programs at the facility level in Georgia: key challenges and opportunities https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7903395/
Evaluation of the implementation of WHO infection prevention and control core components in Turkish health care facilities: results from a WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework (IPCAF)—based survey
Assessing infection prevention and control structures in German hospitals after the COVID-19 pandemic using the WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework (IPCAF): results from 660 hospitals and comparison with a pre-pandemic survey https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-024-01465-7
Infection control in healthcare facilities of Kazakhstan: current realities, challenges, and integration of international best practices https://banglajol.info/index.php/BJMS/article/view/84669
Evaluating infection prevention and control programs in Austrian acute care hospitals using the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-020-00761-2
State of infection prevention and control in Austrian hospitals: data from 81 hospitals completing the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-025-01532-7
Infection prevention and control in tertiary care hospitals of Bangladesh: results from WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework (IPCAF) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-022-01161-4
Assessment of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Implementation and Strategies Used for IPC Preparedness at Facility Level in Underdeveloped Areas of Pakistan https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/IDR.S399830
Implementation of the WHO core components of an infection prevention and control programme in two sub-saharan African acute health-care facilities: a mixed methods study https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-023-01358-1
Evaluating infection prevention and control programs in Zambian hospitals using the WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework tool https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpub...
Assessment of Infection Prevention and Control in Somali Healthcare Facilities using the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-025-01584-9
Assessment of infection prevention and control practices in healthcare facilities in the O.R. Tambo district municipality using the WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpub...
First nationwide survey of infection prevention and control among healthcare facilities in Japan: impact of the national regulatory system https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-022-01175-y
The status of infection prevention and control structures in Eastern China based on the IPCAF tool of the World Health Organization https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-022-01087-x
The status of infection prevention and control structures in secondary and tertiary hospitals in Northwest China: findings from WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-025-01598-3
Evaluating infection prevention and control implementation in hospitals of underdeveloped region of China using the standardized WHO-IPCAF tool https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpub...
The First WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework Survey in Maternal and Child Health Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Inner Mongolia, China https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5982307
Baseline evaluation of the World Health Organization (WHO) infection prevention and control (IPC) core components in Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-024-01447-9
Assessing the implementation of infection prevention and control measures at private hospitals in Dubai, United Arab Emirates https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-025-01672-w
Analyzing infection prevention and control program in Egyptian university hospitals: strengths and areas for improvement https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13756-026-01758-z
A scoping review of published reports of the infection prevention and control assessment framework: a comparison to the findings of the global report on infection prevention and control https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/items/c5ea029d-2d71-4d90-9fe...
As a reminder - from the most recent WHO global report only 16% of healthcare facilities (total 5537) met 100% of WHO IPC minimum requirements! And we have global targets to meet including: - An increase of proportion of healthcare facilities meeting all WHO minimum requirements for IPC programmes (baseline at 2019 – 16%): □ 30% by 2026 □ 60% by 2028 □ >90% by 2030.
We are already in 2026! And while helpful, use of the IPCAF, for example, is just one part of the journey.
Intentional, sequential and cyclical implementation actions address barriers, behaviours, relationships, leadership, culture, context – moving from us what to how, from knowing to doing.
WHO implementation manuals support all of these efforts (a couple of examples below but many exist for different settings and aspects of IPC https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/infection-preventio...) 1. Practical Manual supporting national implementation of the WHO Guidelines on Core Components of Infection Prevention and Control Programmes - This practical manual was designed to support implementation of the WHO Guidelines on core components - It describes what is necessary (that is, recommendations) to effectively improve, alongside how to do this (that is, how to implement the Guideline recommendations) - It focuses on the development of a sustainable action plan informed by the local context to put into operation the Guideline recommendations - The manual is grounded in the theory of implementation science and uses practical examples from a range of countries to illustrate “implementation in action”.
2. Development and implementation of national action plans for infection prevention and control - Practical guide
This practical guide is in three parts and includes annexes. Ideally, each part should be read in sequence. However, it may be helpful to read across different parts at the same time.
The purpose of the practical guide is to: • provide a practical, stepwise approach to the development and implementation of an IPC National Action Plan (NAP); • outline a suite of tools, resources and inspirational country stories to help prioritize, cost, implement, monitor and evaluate NAP activities.
The primary target audience is those who are tasked with the development/update and implementation of the IPC NAP and potential users are: o those working in associated programmes such as #AMR, #patientsafety, #WASH, emergencies/emergency preparedness and quality of care (non-exclusive list); o political leader sand policy makers (including those responsible for programme planning and financing at the ministry of health); o accreditation bodies; o others working in occupational health or involved in International Health Regulations and One Health; o educational institutes & professional societies o key partners and donors; o community and civil society; o media and communication professionals.
Additionally, use of the WHO multimodal improvement strategy (MMIS), alongside implementation, is an behaviour change intervention in itself - it draws on different behaviour approaches/theories, including working with schools of psychology to provide five elements that are required to support behaviour change - what we have all come to know as the MMIS and has been outlined in the literature as having an impact on IPC improvements (but we do need more high quality research on this): - Multimodal strategies for the implementation of IPC interventions - update of a systematic review for the WHO guidelines on core components of IPC programmes at the facility level (2025) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X25000163 - Of 5678 identified titles and abstracts, 32 publications were eligible for data extraction and analysis. - Five non-controlled before-after studies were excluded due to insufficient integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs score. - Of the remaining 27 studies, nine reported on the effect of multimodal strategies to reduce device-associated HAIs, four on surgical site infections, eight on infections due to antimicrobial resistance and six on hand hygiene (HH) compliance. Eleven were controlled studies (randomized controlled studies or controlled before-after studies), nine interrupted time series and even non-controlled before-after studies 2️ - Twenty-two of the studies originated from high-income countries, and the overall quality was medium to low - Twenty studies showed either significant HAI reductions or HH improvement. - Most studies demonstrated a significant effect on HAI prevention and HH improvement after applying a multimodal strategy. - Future research should focus on higher quality studies in resource limited settings.
This links with the WHO HH research agenda, where consensus was achieved for 178 of 192 priorities (92.7%), categorized into six domains; system change, training and education, evaluation and feedback, reminders and communications, institutional safety climate and hand hygiene improvement impact on HAI & AMR. Of these, 121 priorities reached >80% consensus. The Delphi process maintained a 92% response rate over two rounds. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/infection-control-and-hospital-e...
An additional helpful document is available on resource consideration for a HH MMIS https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/b297cfb3-c61c-4e9a-8f82-... - It presents the inputs (such as equipment, supplies and activities) required to estimate the investments needed to implement and sustain a comprehensive HH MMIS, and supports health workers to perform HH at the point of care and at other important times for safe, high-quality care (across primary, tertiary and secondary care settings).
Reflecting on IPC programme "maturity" is important and can be supported by using existing tools, and results take many forms - not just through formal assessments and scientific data publications - case studies are also valuable – you can share on this platform or the WHO community of practice.
Can anyone here explain their plans to monitor IPC progress against evidence based standards?
S3 Global Health (Claire Kilpatrick DSc MSc PGDipIPC RN MFTM (RCPS-Glas) & Julie Storr RGN BN MBA MHS ) is proud to have worked on developing a range of these documents - commissioned by WHO.
HIFA profile: Claire Kilpatrick is Director at KS Healthcare Consulting, UK. Professional interests: Patient safety, Human factors, Infection prevention, Antimicrobial resistance, Behaviour change, Global health, Public health, Social media. Clairekilpatrick AT ymail.com