Skip to main content

Table 2 Role of IC officer

From: A survey of tuberculosis infection control practices at the NIH/NIAID/DAIDS-supported clinical trial sites in low and middle income countries

 

Total

No officer

Officer

Difference in proportion (95 % confidence) between officer and no officer

P-value

IC SOPs

19 (61.3 %)

4 (33.3 %)

15 (78.9 %)

45.6 % (9.0, 71.5)

0.022

Sufficient waiting area space

28 (93.3 %)

10 (83.3 %)

18 (100 %)

16.7 % (−4.1, 42.5)

0.152

Surveillance of HCW

19 (61.3 %)

4 (33.3 %)

15 (78.9 %)

45.6 % (8.8, 72.5)

0.022

TB IC policies monitored

25 (80.6 %)

7 (58.3 %)

18 (94.7 %)

36.4 % (6.2, 63.9)

0.022

ID, Separation of patients with symptoms

22 (71 %)

7 (58.3 %)

15 (78.9 %)

20.6 % (−12.8, 52.6)

0.253

Separate sputum collection

25 (80.6 %)

7 (58.3 %)

18 (94.7 %)

36.4 % (6.0, 64.3)

0.022

Ventilation

25 (80.6 %)

7 (58.3 %)

18 (94.7 %)

36.4 % (5.9, 64.2)

0.022

PPE available

30 (96.8 %)

11 (91.7 %)

19 (100 %)

8.3 % (−8.0, 33.2)

0.387

N95 or equivalent masks

27 (87.1 %)

10 (83.3 %)

17 (89.5 %)

6.1 % (−18.3, 35.2)

0.63

Fit testing for masks

13 (43.3 %)

3 (25 %)

10 (55.6 %)

30.6 % (−6.0, 59)

0.141

  1. Number and percent of positive responses for each domain by whether a site had an IC officer present. The p-value is a comparison of the proportions between sites with IC officers and without IC officers