Strengthening IP & C Programs by Moving from‘ Active’ to‘ Effective’ and Improving Resourcing
Despite decades of progress in reducing healthcareassociated infections( HAIs), the COVID-19 pandemic exposed persistent vulnerabilities and resource gaps in IP & C programs, highlighting the urgent need for stronger, betterresourced, and more influential efforts.”
By Kelly M. Pyrek
If compliance is the conundrum, we have seen in the preceding feature article, perhaps part of the solution lies in addressing underlying resourcing and staffing issues, as well as a paradigm shift in ideology.
In late April, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America( SHEA), in collaboration with the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology( APIC), the Infectious Diseases Society of America( IDSA), and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society( PIDS), released a joint position paper urging healthcare facilities to elevate the standards and effectiveness of their infection prevention and control( IP & C) programs.
Despite decades of progress in reducing healthcare-associated infections( HAIs), the COVID-19 pandemic exposed persistent vulnerabilities and resource gaps in IP & C programs, highlighting the urgent need for stronger, better-resourced, and more influential efforts. The new position paper calls on healthcare leaders, regulatory agencies, and payors to prioritize IP & C programs as foundational and essential components of healthcare operations.
“ Preventing infections in healthcare settings is not optional— it’ s fundamental to patient safety, healthcare quality, and operational stability,” says position paper lead author Tom Talbot, MD, MPH, FSHEA, FIDSA, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, chief hospital epidemiologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and SHEA’ s past president.“ This position paper provides a clear roadmap for transforming IP & C programs into highly effective, proactive, and properly resourced elements of healthcare delivery. Preventing harm to patients directly reduces healthcare costs and should be prioritized as much as revenue generation for its positive impact on both patients and healthcare systems.”
But, Talbot says, moving the needle the fastest on individual and institutional accountability involves other parties.
“ I think we need our regulatory friends to help,” Talbot says,“ namely, when a surveyor goes into a facility, can they do a deeper dive into the program? Is there a dyad leadership model? Are the leaders trained in IP & C? What is the reporting structure? Are there adequate resources using tools like the calculator noted in the paper? Now, there will have to be a different approach to when a surveyor finds some areas not meeting the expectations we set in the paper. It would take much longer for a facility to address some of the gaps, so the typical short timeline for resolution of deficiencies( one to three months) would not work. Some, like getting their leaders fully trained in IP & C competencies may be easier to attain than having to hire a medical director if none is part of the program. But what if a surveyor noted the need to address these issues and then on the next survey, reassesses progress. If a facility has not moved forward after three
years, does that result in some sort of penalty?”
Based on a systematic literature search and formal consensus process, the position paper authors advocate raising the expectations for facility IP & C programs, moving to effective programs that are:
To read the full position paper click here
• Foundational and influential parts of the facility’ s operational structure
• Resourced with the correct expertise and leadership
• Prioritized to address all potential infectious harms
IP & C programs’ leadership should be based on a dyad model that includes both physician and infection preventionist leaders, and impacts its reporting structure, expertise, and competencies of its members, and the roles and accountability of partnering groups within the healthcare facility. The new position paper outlines a process for identifying minimum IP & C program medical director support.
As Talbot, et al.( 2025) state,“ IP & C programs remain vulnerable and under-resourced, the composition of and resources committed to IP & C programs vary widely, and the scope and intensity of IP & C activities differ between facilities. Instead of being a foundational necessity that accommodates healthcare facilities of all types and sizes, an adequately resourced IP & C program that addresses all infectious harms may be seen by some
20 • www. healthcarehygienemagazine. com • may-june 2025