I enjoyed my first IFIC experience over the past few days in Vienna, and thought I’d share some reflections.
I found the pro-con debate between Dr Michaal Borg and Prof Gary French on whether we need more evidence to improve infection prevention and control useful. (Clearly, my vote was for Prof French, my PhD supervisor and all-around acadmic mentor.) Prof French gave a good case for an evidence-based medicine approach to IPC, bemoaning poor-quality evidence to support IPC interventions and an over-reliance on ritual and tradition. Although decent IPC study designs are tricky (and tricker than for an antibiotic trials), they are possible, as illustrated by the small number of cluster RCTs we have at our disposal. Dr Borg argued convincingly that, even if cluster RCTs support on intervention, they would likely be performed in high-resource, academic teaching hospitals, which are a different plant to the average hospital so may well not be applicable. Furthermore, clinicans are pretty poor at following guidelines even if they are evidence-based because culture eats policy for breakfast! Michael questioned whether the ‘English MRSA Miracle’ was founded in evidence-based medicine, or a pragmatic multi-faceted intervention. On balance, the room sided with Michael, agreeing that we have enough evidence to make a big different (but all agreed that better quality evidence wouldn’t hurt)!




I am always interested in compliance. What makes staff implement an intervention reliably? What makes a patient follow the advice they’ve been given? A new 


