OBJECTIVE: To develop new evaluation indices of infection control and to use them to evaluate Korean infection surveillance and control programs (ISCPs). DESIGN: We performed a questionnaire-based survey to 164 acute care general hospitals throughout the Republic of Korea that had more than 300 beds. Study methods were based completely on those of the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC). Four SENIC indices (hospital epidemiologist index, infection control nurse index, surveillance index, and control index) and 4 newly developed indices (healthcare worker index, quality improvement index, resource index, and hand hygiene facilities index) were used to evaluate Korean ISCPs. Data were collected by questionnaire from June 17 to October 11, 2003. SETTING: One hundred sixty-four general hospitals with more than 300 beds in the Republic of Korea. RESULTS: Personnel from 85 general hospitals responded to the study questionnaire. The reliability and validity of the evaluation indices were statistically significant (P<.05). The 8 evaluation indices were categorized into 2 factor groups: personnel factors (hospital epidemiologist index and infection control nurse index) and activity factors (the remaining 6 indices). Korean ISCPs showed a major weakness in surveillance. The scores for the newly developed evaluation indices were better than those for the SENIC evaluation indices. However, most Korean hospitals were estimated to have had only slight reductions in nosocomial infection rates. The evaluation indices were influenced significantly by the number of beds in the hospital, whether the hospital was located in the Seoul-Gyonggi region, the presence of full-time infection control nurses at the hospital, the education level of the infection control nurses, and the nurses' experience in infection control (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The reliability and validity of the SENIC evaluation indices and the newly developed evaluation indices were satisfactory in evaluating Korean ISCPs. However, surveillance should be improved to increase the efficacy of Korean ISCPs.
OBJECTIVE: To develop new evaluation indices of infection control and to use them to evaluate Korean infection surveillance and control programs (ISCPs). DESIGN: We performed a questionnaire-based survey to 164 acute care general hospitals throughout the Republic of Korea that had more than 300 beds. Study methods were based completely on those of the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC). Four SENIC indices (hospital epidemiologist index, infection control nurse index, surveillance index, and control index) and 4 newly developed indices (healthcare worker index, quality improvement index, resource index, and hand hygiene facilities index) were used to evaluate Korean ISCPs. Data were collected by questionnaire from June 17 to October 11, 2003. SETTING: One hundred sixty-four general hospitals with more than 300 beds in the Republic of Korea. RESULTS: Personnel from 85 general hospitals responded to the study questionnaire. The reliability and validity of the evaluation indices were statistically significant (P<.05). The 8 evaluation indices were categorized into 2 factor groups: personnel factors (hospital epidemiologist index and infection control nurse index) and activity factors (the remaining 6 indices). Korean ISCPs showed a major weakness in surveillance. The scores for the newly developed evaluation indices were better than those for the SENIC evaluation indices. However, most Korean hospitals were estimated to have had only slight reductions in nosocomial infection rates. The evaluation indices were influenced significantly by the number of beds in the hospital, whether the hospital was located in the Seoul-Gyonggi region, the presence of full-time infection control nurses at the hospital, the education level of the infection control nurses, and the nurses' experience in infection control (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The reliability and validity of the SENIC evaluation indices and the newly developed evaluation indices were satisfactory in evaluating Korean ISCPs. However, surveillance should be improved to increase the efficacy of Korean ISCPs.