Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
189,280 studies31 sourcesUpdated 44 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0The European Journal of Public Health

Compliance with Infection Prevention and Control Measures in Primary Care: a Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Background: Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures aim to safeguard patients’ and professionals’ safety in increased risk scenarios. In Portugal, minimum IPC measures for healthcare facilities were established in 2012 by the General Directorate of Health (GDH), but compliance is rarely evaluated.

Objectives: To evaluate compliance with the established IPC measures in primary care facilities and to identify quality improvement opportunities.

Methods: Observational study using data from primary care facilities in capital city (2025). Data were collected via onsite visits by a multidisciplinary team using a standardized tool provided by the GDH comprising 12 thematic areas and multiple assessed items.

Results: We analyzed 18 healthcare facilities belonging to the same institution. Compliance scores varied across the assessed themes, ranging from 100.00% (injectable drugs safety) to 53.94% (knowledge on IPC measures). Three additional criteria had compliance levels under 70%: residues collection (58.33%), medical equipment treatment (60.87%), and environmental control (62.50%). Furthermore, our assessment revealed heterogeneity in performance across units, with institution’s overall quality index (QI) averaging 76.98% for processes and 71.46% for structures, masking wide disparities between the best and worst performing units.

Conclusions: Despite moderate overall compliance with IPC measures, gaps remain in basic practices that should be uniformly implemented across all primary care facilities. The particularly low compliance observed in professionals’ knowledge may compromise the optimization of processes, reinforcing the need to strengthen training programmes and awareness strategies as key measures to improve overall QI. These findings highlight variability in IPC implementation across primary care facilities, underscoring the importance of targeted interventions and continuous monitoring to improve compliance and ensure patient and professional safety.

Key messages: • Despite moderate IPC compliance, our study reveals significant performance gaps within the same institution. We highlight urgent need for targeted training to ensure safety consistency across units.

• Our findings expose critical variability in basic IPC practices within primary care. Continuous monitoring and focused professional training are essential to bridge the gaps and ensure patient safety.

Related

  1. Infection prevention training and adherence to infection control practices in childcare and early childhood education facilities during COVID-19: a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan
    Akiko Uno, Sonomi Nakajima
    Environmental Health and Preventive MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthJ-STAGE
  2. Adherence of healthcare personnel to infection prevention and control program in maternal and child hospitals in Sana'a City, Yemen, cross-sectional study.
    Jamal Abdu Sofan, Yahia Ahmed Raja'a, Mohammed Abdullah Al Amad
    BMC health services researchPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textInfectious diseaseEurope PMCDOAJ
  3. MRSA Knowledge, Infection-Prevention Practices, and Antibiotic Use Without Clinician Consultation Among Hajj Pilgrims Arriving in Madinah, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study †
    Abrar Aloufi, Mohammed Hashim Albashir, Abubaker M. Hamad +3
    Tropical medicine and infectious diseasePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  4. Infection prevention and control considerations in invasive group A streptococcus outbreaks.
    Louise Kelly, Saied Ali
    Infection prevention in practicePeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textEpidemiology & public healthEurope PMC
  5. Global Readiness for AI and Digital Health in Infection Prevention and Control
    E Tartari, S Gastaldi
    The European Journal of Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthPMCEurope PMC
BibTeX
@article{costa2026compliance,
  title = {{Compliance with Infection Prevention and Control Measures in Primary Care: a Cross-Sectional Study}},
  author = {M Mateus da Costa and P Pereira and I Fernandes and A Fortes and S Canto and R Dias and A T Vieira and T Antunes and M M Paixao},
  journal = {The European Journal of Public Health},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1612},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1612},
  note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Compliance with Infection Prevention and Control Measures in Primary Care: a Cross-Sectional Study
AU  - M Mateus da Costa
AU  - P Pereira
AU  - I Fernandes
AU  - A Fortes
AU  - S Canto
AU  - R Dias
AU  - A T Vieira
AU  - T Antunes
AU  - M M Paixao
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/01
JO  - The European Journal of Public Health
DO  - 10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1612
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.1612
AB  - Background: Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures aim to safeguard patients’ and professionals’ safety in increased risk scenarios. In Portugal, minimum IPC measures for healthcare facilities were established in 2012 by the General Directorate of Health (GDH), but compliance is rarely evaluated.  Objectives: To evaluate compliance with the established IPC measures in primary care facilities and to identify quality improvement opportunities.  Methods: Observational study using data from primary care facilities in capital city (2025). Data were collected via onsite visits by a multidisciplinary team using a standardized tool provided by the GDH comprising 12 thematic areas and multiple assessed items.  Results: We analyzed 18 healthcare facilities belonging to the same institution. Compliance scores varied across the assessed themes, ranging from 100.00% (injectable drugs safety) to 53.94% (knowledge on IPC measures). Three additional criteria had compliance levels under 70%: residues collection (58.33%), medical equipment treatment (60.87%), and environmental control (62.50%). Furthermore, our assessment revealed heterogeneity in performance across units, with institution’s overall quality index (QI) averaging 76.98% for processes and 71.46% for structures, masking wide disparities between the best and worst performing units.  Conclusions: Despite moderate overall compliance with IPC measures, gaps remain in basic practices that should be uniformly implemented across all primary care facilities. The particularly low compliance observed in professionals’ knowledge may compromise the optimization of processes, reinforcing the need to strengthen training programmes and awareness strategies as key measures to improve overall QI. These findings highlight variability in IPC implementation across primary care facilities, underscoring the importance of targeted interventions and continuous monitoring to improve compliance and ensure patient and professional safety.  Key messages: • Despite moderate IPC compliance, our study reveals significant performance gaps within the same institution. We highlight urgent need for targeted training to ensure safety consistency across units.  • Our findings expose critical variability in basic IPC practices within primary care. Continuous monitoring and focused professional training are essential to bridge the gaps and ensure patient safety.
SN  - 1101-1262
SN  - 1464-360X
ER  -