4.3 Review

Safe Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Review on the Costs of Establishing and Maintaining Environmental Health in Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18020817

Keywords

healthcare facilities; environmental health; water sanitation and hygiene; WaSH; waste management; cleaning; infection prevention and control; costing; finance; economic

Funding

  1. Wallace Genetic Foundation
  2. University of North Carolina Royster Society of Fellows
  3. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [T32ES007018]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The lack of evidence on the costs of establishing, operating, and maintaining Environmental Health Services (EHS) in healthcare facilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is evident. The quality of evidence is low and reported costs do not represent the total costs of EHS provision. Opportunities for improvement in costing research include categorizing and disaggregating EHS costs, disseminating existing unpublished data, improving indicators to monitor EHS demand and quality, and developing frameworks to define EHS needs and essential inputs.
A hygienic environment is essential to provide quality patient care and prevent healthcare-acquired infections. Understanding costs is important to budget for service delivery, but costs evidence for environmental health services (EHS) in healthcare facilities (HCFs) is lacking. We present the first systematic review to evaluate the costs of establishing, operating, and maintaining EHS in HCFs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically searched for studies costing water, sanitation, hygiene, cleaning, waste management, personal protective equipment, vector control, laundry, and lighting in LMICs. Our search yielded 36 studies that reported costs for 51 EHS. There were 3 studies that reported costs for water, 3 for sanitation, 4 for hygiene, 13 for waste management, 16 for cleaning, 2 for personal protective equipment, 10 for laundry, and none for lighting or vector control. Quality of evidence was low. Reported costs were rarely representative of the total costs of EHS provision. Unit costs were infrequently reported. This review identifies opportunities to improve costing research through efforts to categorize and disaggregate EHS costs, greater dissemination of existing unpublished data, improvements to indicators to monitor EHS demand and quality necessary to contextualize costs, and development of frameworks to define EHS needs and essential inputs to guide future costing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available