Anna Maruta

Introduction The risk of exposure to M.

Water quality surveillance can help to reduce waterborne diseases. Despite better access to safe drinking water in Sierra Leone, about a third of the population (3 million people) drink water from unimproved sources. In this cross-sectional study, we collected water samples from 15 standpipes and 5 wells and measured the physicochemical and bacteriological water quality, and the antimicrobial sensitivity of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in two communities in Freetown, Sierra Leone in the dry and wet seasons in 2021. All water sources were contaminated with E. coli, and all five wells and 25% of standpipes had at least an intermediate risk level of E. coli. There was no antimicrobial resistance detected in the E. coli tested. The nitrate level exceeded the WHO’s recommended standard (>10 parts per million) in 60% of the wells and in less than 20% of the standpipes. The proportion of samples from standpipes with high levels of total dissolved solids (>10 Nephelometric Turbidity Units) was much higher in the rainy season (73% vs. 7%). The level of water contamination is concerning. We suggest options to reduce E. coli contamination. Further research is required to identify where contamination of the water in standpipes is occurring.

Implementing and monitoring infection prevention and control (IPC) measures at immigration points of entry (PoEs) is key to preventing infections, reducing excessive use of antimicrobials, and tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Sierra Leone has been implementing IPC measures at four PoEs (Queen Elizabeth II Quay port, Lungi International Airport, and the Jendema and Gbalamuya ground crossings) since the last Ebola outbreak in 2014–2015. We adapted the World Health Organization IPC Assessment Framework tool to assess these measures and identify any gaps in their components at each PoE through a cross-sectional study in May 2021. IPC measures were Inadequate (0–25%) at Queen Elizabeth II Quay port (21%; 11/53) and Jendema (25%; 13/53) and Basic (26–50%) at Lungi International Airport (40%; 21/53) and Gbalamuya (49%; 26/53). IPC components with the highest scores were: having a referral system (85%; 17/20), cleaning and sanitation (63%; 15/24), and having a screening station (59%; 19/32). The lowest scores (0% each) were reported for the availability of IPC guidelines and monitoring of IPC practices. This was the first study in Sierra Leone highlighting significant gaps in the implementation of IPC measures at PoEs. We call on the AMR multisectoral coordinating committee to enhance IPC measures at all PoEs.

Introduction: Good Infection prevention and control (IPC) is vital for tackling antimicrobial resistance and limiting health care-associated infections. We compared IPC performance before (2019) and during the COVID-19 (2021) era at the national IPC unit and all regional (4) and district hospitals (8) in Sierra Leone. Methods: Cross-sectional assessments using standardized World Health Organizations IPC checklists. IPC performance scores were graded as inadequate = 0–25%, basic = 25.1–50%, intermediate = 50.1–75%, and advanced = 75.1–100%. Results: Overall performance improved from ‘basic’ to ‘intermediate’ at the national IPC unit (41% in 2019 to 58% in 2021) and at regional hospitals (37% in 2019 to 54% in 2021) but remained ‘basic’ at district hospitals (37% in 2019 to 50% in 2021). Priority gaps at the national IPC unit included lack of: a dedicated IPC budget, monitoring the effectiveness of IPC trainings and health care-associated infection surveillance. Gaps at hospitals included no assessment of hospital staffing needs, inadequate infrastructure for IPC and lack of a well-defined monitoring plan with clear goals, targets and activities. Conclusion: Although there is encouraging progress in IPC performance, it is slower than desired in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is urgent need to mobilize political will, leadership and resources and make a quantum leap forward.

Inappropriate use of antibiotics during the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to increase the burden of antimicrobial resistance. In this study, we report on the prevalence of antibiotic use and its associated factors among suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to 35 health facilities in Sierra Leone from March 2020–March 2021. This was a cross-sectional study using routinely collected patient data. Of 700 confirmed COVID-19 patients, 47% received antibiotics. The majority (73%) of the antibiotics belonged to the ’WATCH’ group of antibiotics, which are highly toxic and prone to resistance. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were azithromycin, ceftriaxone, amoxicillin, metronidazole, and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. Antibiotic use was significantly higher in patients aged 25–34 years than in those with severe disease. Of 755 suspected COVID-19 patients, 61% received antibiotics, of which the majority (58%) belonged to the ‘WATCH’ category. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were ceftriaxone, metronidazole, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, and amoxycillin. The prevalence of antibiotic use among suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to healthcare facilities in Sierra Leone was high and not in line with national and WHO case management guidelines. Training of health care providers, strengthening of antimicrobial stewardship programs, and microbiological laboratory capacity are urgently needed.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) result in millions of avoidable deaths or prolonged lengths of stay in hospitals and cause huge economic loss to health systems and communities. Primarily, HAIs spread through the hands of healthcare workers, so improving hand hygiene can reduce their spread. We evaluated hand hygiene practices and promotion across 13 public health hospitals (six secondary and seven tertiary hospitals) in the Western Area of Sierra Leone in a cross-sectional study using the WHO hand hygiene self-Assessment framework in May 2021. The mean score for all hospitals was 273 ± 46, indicating an intermediate level of hand hygiene. Nine hospitals achieved an intermediate level and four a basic level. More secondary hospitals 5 (83%) were at the intermediate level, compared to tertiary hospitals 4 (57%). Tertiary hospitals were poorly rated in the reminders in workplace and institutional safety climate domains but excelled in training and education. Lack of budgets to support hand hygiene implementation is a priority gap underlying this poor performance. These gaps hinder hand hygiene practice and promotion, contributing to the continued spread of HAIs. Enhancing the distribution of hand hygiene resources and encouraging an embedded culture of hand hygiene practice in hospitals will reduce HAIs.

Hand hygiene actions are essential to reduce healthcare-associated infections and the development of antimicrobial resistance. In this cross-sectional study at two tertiary hospitals, Freetown, Sierra Leone, we observed hand hygiene compliance (defined as using handwash with soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) amongst healthcare workers between June and August 2021. Using the WHO Hand Hygiene tool, observations were made in relation to the type of opportunity, different wards and types of healthcare worker. Overall, 10,461 opportunities for hand hygiene were observed, of which 5086 (49%) resulted in hand hygiene actions. ABHR was used more often than handwash (26% versus 23%, p < 0.001). Overall, compliance was significantly better: after being with a patient/doing a procedure than before (78% after body fluid exposure risk compared with 24% before touching a patient—p < 0.001); in Paediatric (61%) compared with Medical wards (46%)—p < 0.001; and amongst nurses (52%) compared with doctors (44%)—p < 0.001. Similar patterns of compliance were observed within each hospital. In summary, hand hygiene compliance was sub-optimal, especially before being with a patient or before clean/aseptic procedures. Improvement is needed through locally adapted training, hand hygiene reminders in wards and outpatient departments, uninterrupted provision of ABHR and innovative ways to change behaviour.

Although hand hygiene (HH) is the most effective intervention to reduce the spread of infections, there are limited data on HH facilities, policy, and compliance in sub-Saharan Africa. This cross-sectional study is aimed at assessing HH using the WHO HH self-assessment framework, HH technical reference manual, and a modified infection control self-assessment tool in two hospitals in Sierra Leone. Only 10% and 9% of regional and capital city hospitals had running tap water, respectively. Veronica buckets were the resources for HH in 89% of units in the regional hospital and 92% of units in capital city hospital. Constant supply of soap and alcohol-based hand rub was available in 82% and 68%; and 74% and 79% of units in the capital city and regional hospitals, respectively. Only 10% of the units in both hospitals had hand-drying facilities and functional sinks. Overall HH compliance for the two hospitals was 18.6% and was higher in the regional (20.8%) than the capital city (17.0%) hospitals. The HH levels for the capital city and regional hospitals were 277.5 and 262.5 respectively. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, there are still challenges with HH compliance in Sierra Leone. It is, therefore, necessary to strengthen the HH multi-modal strategy.

Background: High compliance to infection prevention and control (IPC) is vital to prevent health care-associated infections. In the worst 2014–2015 Ebola-affected district in Sierra Leone (Kenema), we assessed (a) average yearly IPC compliance (2016–2018) using a National IPC assessment tool in the district hospital and peripheral health units (PHUs), and (b) gaps in IPC activities, infrastructure and consumables in 2018. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using secondary program data. Results: At the district hospital, compliance increased from 69% in 2016 to 73% in 2018 (expected minimal threshold = 70%; desired threshold ≥ 85%). Compliance for screening/isolation facilities and decontamination of medical equipment reached 100% in 2018. The two thematic areas with the lowest compliance were sanitation (44%) and sharps safety (56%). In PHUs (2018), the minimal 70% compliance threshold was not achieved in two (of 10 thematic areas) for Community Health Centers, four for Community Health Posts, and five for Maternal and Child Health Units. The lowest compliance was for screening and isolation facilities (range: 33–53%). Conclusion: This baseline assessment is an eye opener of what is working and what is not, and can be used to galvanize political, financial, and material resources to bridge the existing gaps.