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.

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.

In sub-Saharan Africa, there is limited information about the use of microbiology laboratory services in patients with suspected urinary tract infections (UTIs). This cross-sectional study assessed the requests for urine culture in patients with suspected UTI in two tertiary (maternal and paediatric) hospitals—Freetown and Sierra Leone, during May 2017–May 2021—and determined antimicrobial resistance (AMR) patterns among bacterial isolates. One laboratory served the two hospitals, with its electronic database used to extract information. Overall, there were 980 patients, of whom 168 (17%) had cultures requested and performed. Of these, 75 (45%) were culture positive. During 2017–2019, there were 930 patients, of whom 156 (17%) had cultures performed. During 2020–2021, when services were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, there were 50 patients, of whom 12 (24%) had cultures performed. The four commonest isolates were Escherichia coli (36), Klebsiella pneumoniae (10), Staphylococcus aureus (9), and Pseudomonas spp. (6). There were high levels of AMR, especially for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (47%), nalidixic acid (44%), nitrofurantoin (32%) and cefotaxime (36%). Overall, 41 (55%) bacterial isolates showed multidrug resistance, especially E. coli (58%), Pseudomonas spp. (50%), and S. aureus (44%). These findings support the need for better utilization of clinical microbiology services to guide antibiotic stewardship and monitoring of trends in resistance patterns.

In 2021, an operational research study in two tertiary hospitals in Freetown showed poor hand hygiene compliance. Recommended actions were taken to improve the situation. Between February–April 2023, a cross-sectional study was conducted in the same two hospitals using the World Health Organization hand hygiene tool to assess and compare hand hygiene compliance with that observed between June–August 2021. In Connaught hospital, overall hand hygiene compliance improved from 51% to 60% (p < 0.001), and this applied to both handwash actions with soap and water and alcohol-based hand rub. Significant improvements were found in all hospital departments and amongst all healthcare worker cadres. In 34 Military Hospital (34MH), overall hand hygiene compliance decreased from 40% to 32% (p < 0.001), with significant decreases observed in all departments and amongst nurses and nursing students. The improvements in Connaught Hospital were probably because of more hand hygiene reminders, better handwash infrastructure and more frequent supervision assessments, compared with 34MH where interventions were less well applied, possibly due to the extensive hospital reconstruction at the time. In conclusion, recommendations from operational research in 2021 contributed towards the improved distribution of hand hygiene reminders, better handwash infrastructure and frequent supervision assessments, which possibly led to improved hand hygiene compliance in one of the two hospitals. These actions need to be strengthened, scaled-up and guided by ongoing operational research to promote good hand hygiene practices elsewhere in the country.

In 2021, an operational research study in two tertiary hospitals, Freetown, showed poor hand hygiene compliance. Recommended actions were taken to improve the situation. Between February-April 2023, a cross-sectional study was conducted in the same two hospitals using the WHO Hand Hygiene tool to assess hand hygiene practices and compare hand hygiene compliance with that observed between June-August 2021. In Connaught hospital, overall hand hygiene compliance improved from 51% to 60% (P<0.001), and this applied to both handwash actions with soap and water and alcohol-based-hand-rub: significant improvements were found in all hospital departments and amongst all healthcare worker cadres. In 34 Military Hospital (34MH), overall hand hygiene compliance decreased from 40% to 32% (P<0.001), with significant decreases observed in all departments and amongst nurses and nursing students. The improvements in Connaught Hospital were attributed to more hand hygiene reminders, better handwash infrastructure and more frequent supervision assessments compared with 34MH where interventions were less well applied, possibly due to extensive hospital reconstruction at the time. In conclusion, improved distribution of hand hygiene reminders, better handwash infrastructure and frequent supervision assessments are effective, and need to be strengthened, scaled-up and combined with other innovative ways to promote good hand hygiene practices.