Strengthening Infection Prevention and Control Leadership in Australian Aged Care: A Call to Action

Ellie Golling, RN. Master IPC.

Luci Rodda, RN. MNSc GeronNurs., GradCert IPC., GradCert AppDataSci.

 

Introduction:

 

Amidst global health crises, notably the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare industry's focus intensifies on aged care facilities. In Australia, the significance of infection prevention and control (IPC) in such settings is glaringly evident. The devastating impact of infectious diseases on vulnerable populations underscores the urgent need for robust measures and proactive leadership in this sector.

 

However, after three years, it is disconcerting that the role of IPC Leads in Australian aged care remains inadequately established. There's a growing concern that without targeted action, this pivotal role might devolve into a mere performative exercise, relegated to a "tick-box" on a compliance checklist. In this blog post, we delve into a more nuanced analysis of the current state of IPC leadership in Australian aged care, the risks associated with the lack of a well-defined role, and advocate for immediate and purposeful steps to fortify this critical aspect of healthcare management.

 

The Current State of IPC Leadership in Australian Aged Care:

 

IPC is paramount in aged care facilities where residents are often more susceptible to infections due to underlying health conditions and age-related vulnerabilities. Recognising this, the Australian government initiated efforts to establish the role of IPC Leads in aged care settings. However, progress has been disappointingly slow, leaving many facilities at risk due to challenges in maintaining dedicated and consistent leadership in IPC.

 

The Risks of an Undefined Role:

 

The absence of clear leadership in IPC poses serious risks to both residents and staff in aged care facilities. While the IPC Lead is expected to embody IPC leadership at the facility level, it's crucial to note that IPC leadership is not synonymous with IPC expertise. Expertise comes with time, skill development, and exposure to IPC. Without designated experts supporting and mentoring IPC Leads, residential aged care facilities are at risk of gaps in IPC protocols, leading to an increased risk of outbreaks and compromised health outcomes. Moreover, an undefined role can result in a lack of accountability, diminishing the effectiveness of preventive measures.

 

It's important to clarify that these observations are not criticisms of current IPC Lead practices. Instead, they are observations of government expectations, organisational strategy, and the risk of these levels not connecting with IPC Leads, specifically their ability to deliver what is expected (mandatory requirements) and what is necessary (evidence-based practice).

 

Performative Practices and Tick-Box Exercises:

 

In the absence of a well-established leadership structure, there's a growing concern that the role of IPC Leads may be reduced to a mere formality. The danger lies in institutions treating IPC measures as ticks and crosses on compliance lists, rather than being used as integral components of comprehensive healthcare. This shift from proactive leadership to performative practices not only jeopardises the well-being of residents but also undermines the fundamental purpose of IPC – the prevention and management of infections in older adults and communal living environments.

 

The Urgent Need for Targeted Action:

 

In recognising the pitfalls associated with the lack of well-defined leadership roles in IPC, it is imperative for the Australian aged care sector to take immediate and purposeful action. Here are some key steps that can be taken to address this pressing issue:

 

1. Establish clear guidelines and standards

Develop and implement clear guidelines and standards for the role of IPC Leads in aged care facilities. This includes defining responsibilities, qualifications, and reporting structures to ensure accountability.

 

2. Invest in training and education

Provide comprehensive training and education for individuals taking on the role of IPC Leads. This should cover not only the technical aspects of IPC but also leadership and communication skills necessary for effective implementation.

 

3. Promote a culture of continuous improvement

Foster a culture of continuous improvement within aged care facilities. Encourage regular audits, feedback mechanisms, and performance evaluations to ensure that IPC measures are not static but evolve with the changing landscape of healthcare.

 

4. Integration of technology and innovation

Leverage technology and innovation to enhance IPC measures. Implementing digital solutions for monitoring, reporting, and communication can streamline processes and improve the efficiency of IPC leadership.

 

5. Collaborate and share experiences and successes

Facilitate collaboration between aged care facilities to share their best practices and achievements in IPC. Establish a network where experiences, challenges, and successful strategies can be openly discussed and learned from.

 

Conclusion:

 

The importance of IPC in Australian aged care cannot be overstated. The absence of well-defined leadership roles poses significant risks, not only to the health and safety of residents but also to the reputation and integrity of aged care facilities. To prevent the role of IPC Leads from becoming performative and reduced to a tick-box exercise, targeted action is urgently required.

 

By establishing clear guidelines, investing in training, promoting a culture of continuous improvement, integrating technology, and fostering collaboration, the Australian aged care sector can strengthen its response to infectious diseases. The time for action is now – a resilient and proactive IPC leadership is not just a regulatory requirement but a moral imperative for the well-being of our elderly population.