Projects

Reconnecting conflict affected communities to care

integrated mobile units

Integrated Mobile Units

Learn More

Cardiology trainings

Capacity Building for Health Workers

Learn More

Community Outreach

Community Health Work

Learn More

Latest Articles

  • Assessment of Internet Access in Rural Conflict-Affected Areas of Ukraine

    Assessment of Internet Access in Rural Conflict-Affected Areas of Ukraine

    Abstract

    Digital infrastructure can be as critical as physical infrastructure, especially in the areas affected by the crisis.

    In Ukraine’s context, prolonged armed conflict and the current economic situation make the establishment of new health facilities or the rehabilitation of damaged ones exceptionally challenging..

    This article presents a cross-sectional study of internet access, which has a single aim:

    Is it feasible to implement telehealth solutions in Ukrainian conflict-affected villages?

    Background

    Armed conflict in Ukraine has significantly disrupted physical access to healthcare, rehabilitation, and psychosocial support services, particularly in rural areas.

    Digital health solutions might be an excellent supplement to the deployment of the mobile teams or, in some cases, even a standalone solution to the lack of service delivery.

    However, successful implementation depends on two factors:

    1. access to the internet and its utilization (infrastructure and resource domain)
    2. The practical ability of beneficiaries to use basic digital services (skill domain).

    Urban vs Rural

    It goes without saying that the population of the largest Ukrainian cities has both access and capacity to utilize digital services, while rural conflict-affected communities are frequently perceived as excluded from such solutions.

    This study was designed to assess this assumption empirically and to generate operationally relevant evidence for program design.

    phone with different interfaces, inclusing messeging app

    Methods

    A cross-sectional controlled study design was applied. Data collection was conducted by mobile rehabilitation specialists (MRS) and psychologists as part of routine field activities.

    Study population

    A total of 313 individuals were interviewed:

    • 43 respondents from urban areas (control group)
    • 270 respondents from rural areas (study group)

    The study has been conducted across five oblasts: Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, Dnipro, Kherson, and Odesa city.

    All areas included in the study were conflict-affected at the time of data collection.

    Survey instrument

    The assessment consisted of:

    • A structured 12-question questionnaire focusing on device ownership, internet access, and routine digital behavior
    • One practical task designed to assess functional digital skills

    Practical test

    Participants were asked to:

    1. Receive a verification code via a messenger application
    2. Enter the code into an official government website

    This task was selected to reflect a real-world digital interaction commonly required for accessing public services.

    Results

    Access to internet-enabled devices

    • Rural areas: 77% of respondents reported having access to a device with internet connectivity
    • Urban areas: 100% of respondents reported access to such a device

    In rural households, device access was frequently shared among family members rather than individually owned.

    Use of messenger applications

    Among those who had access to an internet-enabled device:

    • Rural areas: 75% reported regular use of messenger applications
    • Urban areas: 93% reported regular use

    This indicates that once access barriers are removed, routine digital communication behaviors are broadly comparable.

    Practical digital skills

    Among participants who were able to attempt the practical test:

    • No meaningful difference in task performance was observed between rural and urban respondents

    However, rural participants were more likely to be unable to complete the task due to:

    • Temporary lack of internet connectivity at the time of the interview
    • Absence of an internet-enabled device, as it is shared by several family members

    Importantly, these barriers were related to access rather than to digital literacy or skill level.


    Conslusion

    Approximately four out of five rural respondents were able to access the internet, and a substantial majority were familiar with messenger applications.

    This level of access provides a solid foundation for rolling out both asynchronous and synchronous digital health interventions, including telehealth, telerehabilitation, and telepharmacy services.

    These findings support continued investment in remote service delivery models, including national initiatives such as the telepharmacy services launched by Ukrposhta Pharmacy in 2024.

    Our team can tell with some confidence that with proper attention to the connectivity of the rural areas in Ukraine, telemedicine can play a pivotal role in reconnecting communities to health.

  • Assessment of the Energy and Environment Domain – a clear Outlier

    Electricity and power grid has been a commodity for almost 150 years with the advent of the light bulb motorised vehicles. Current AI revolution puts reliable and sustainable energy sources into the top spot.

    Energy has been always a concern during the protracted armed conflict in Ukraine. The electricity stations and power grid have been suffered a barrage of attacks since early 2022 with single aim – to reduce Ukrainian economic output and disrupt the logistics and critical infrastructure.

    To ensure the uninterrupted delivery of health services, most of the Health and WASH partners distributed, installed and connected reserve power sources, significantly improving the resilience of the healthcare system.

    WASH FIT Assessment of Sanitation of 38 Health Facilities

    Our project has trained and assessed 38 health facilities in conflict-affected regions of Ukraine using the WASH FIT methodology.

    WASH FIT is a risk-based quality improvement tool covering the aspects of WASH and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) in the Health Facility:

    1. Water Supply
    2. Sanitation
    3. Hand Hygiene
    4. Waste Management
    5. Environmental cleaning
    6. Energy and Environment
    7. Human Resource and Facility Management

    This article will outline the key findings of the Energy Domain and summarise the 3-year effort of the Health and WASH partners to ensure uninterrupted health services.

    Sanitation Domain Analysis – Methods

    We assessed the “Energy and Environment” of health facilities across 13 standard WASH FIT indicators, each of which is scored 0, 1, or 2 depending on the criticality of the issue:

    • 0: Gap (Non-functional)
    • 1: Partially addressed
    • 2: Fully functioning

    To get the relative final score, we devided absolute score by max value of 26 (13*2) and multiplied by 100% (as a percentage of the maximum).

    For example, if the facility scored 13 points, the relative score is 50% (13/26*100%).

    Analysis: Criticality and Context

    We break down that percentage into three criticality categories:

    • Severe (<50%),
    • Moderate (50–70%),
    • Mild (>70%).

    Looking at the first chart

    The Energy and Environment as Worst and Best performing Domain

    Finally, we contextualize against the other six domains in the WASH FIT assessment (such as water supply or sanitation). We analyze whether Energy lands in a facility’s “Top 3” or “Bottom 3” performing areas.

    The Analysis leaves very little room for doubt:

    Energy and environment has benefited from the collective efforts of the local and international NGOs and UN agencies in provision of reliable back-up power source.

    It almost always ranks among the Top 3 best-performing domains across all geographical areas in Ukraine.

    The bottom line:

    When you assess the Energy domain with the WASH FIT tool, there is high chance it will outperform all other domains

    WASH FIT Energy & Environment Analysis

    WASH FIT Energy & Environment Analysis

    Energy & Environment < 50%
    0%
    0 of 38 facilities
    Energy & Environment in Bottom 3 Domains
    0%
    0 of 38 facilities
    Energy & Environment Among Top 3 Best Performing Domains
    0%
    0 of 38 facilities
    Energy & Environment Performance Distribution
    Energy & Environment in Bottom 3 Domains
    Energy & Environment Among Top 3 Best Performing Domains
    Mean Scores by Domain Across All Facilities
    Analysis Summary
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) have energy & environment scores below 50%, indicating critical need for improvement
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) have excellent energy & environment scores above 70%
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) rank energy & environment among their bottom three performing domains
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) rank energy & environment among their top three best performing domains
    • • The majority of facilities (0%) have energy & environment scores between 50-70%, showing moderate performance

    Energy and Environment vs Waste Management

  • Assesment of the Sanitation in Health Facilites – is there any Progress?

    As uninspiring as it could be as a topic of a blog post, the healthcare infrastructure plays a critical role in our lives. During a crisis, and beyond, public infrastructure is an excellent litmus test for the Government and Non-government organisations – can we finally pull the resources to reform and modernize?

    First years of crisis, we saw an increased interest, from the NGO partners in the first place, to the critical infrastructure. There was a somewhat chaotic but non-theless well intented effort of half-a-dozen international organisations and local agencies in identifying the critical needs of healthcare facilities.

    Somehow, almost all of them at some point in their implementation strategy focused on the washrooms and restrooms – from the provision of sanitary fixtures to the full renovation of the facilities.

    WASH FIT Assessment of Sanitation of 38 Health Facilities

    Our project has trained and assessed 38 health facilities in conflict-affected regions of Ukraine using the WASH FIT methodology.

    WASH FIT is a risk-based quality improvement tool covering the aspects of WASH and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) in the Health Facility:

    1. Water Supply
    2. Sanitation
    3. Hand Hygiene
    4. Waste Management
    5. Environmental cleaning
    6. Energy and Environment
    7. Human Resource and Facility Management

    This article will outline the key findings of the Sanitation Domain and summarize the 3-year effort of the WASH partners trying to cover almost 40-50 years of neglect.

    Sanitation Domain Analysis – Methods

    We assessed the sanitation of health facilities across 13 standard WASH FIT indicators, each of which is scored 0, 1, or 2 depending on the criticality of the issue:

    • 0: Gap (Non-functional)
    • 1: Partially addressed
    • 2: Fully functioning

    To get the relative final score, we devided absolute score by max value of 26 (13*2) and multiplied by 100% (as a percentage of the maximum).

    For example, if the facility scored 13 points, the relative score is 50% (13/26*100%).

    Analysis: Criticality and Context

    We break down that percentage into three criticality categories:

    • Severe (<50%),
    • Moderate (50–70%),
    • Mild (>70%).

    Looking at our first graph, the situation is largely manageable: less than 25% of assessed facilities fall into the “Critical” category (Relative score < 50%) with major gaps in their water domain.

    The Sanitation as Worst and Best perfoming Domain

    Finally, we contextualize against the other six domains in the WASH FIT assessment (such as water supply or sanitation). We analyze whether Sanitation lands in a facility’s “Top 3” or “Bottom 3” performing areas.

    The Analysis leaves very little room for doubt:

    The Sanitation domain still remains riddled with problems and continuous effort is needed to adress them in a more ssystematic way

    It ranks in the Top 3 best-performing and Bottom 3 worst-performing domains, with pretty much average frequency, so it is difficult to see it as outliier like Waste Management or Energy and Environment domains.

    The bottom line:

    It is equally likely that you will encounter sanitation infrastructure in a critical state as it is to find a system where most pressing issues are sorted

    WASH FIT Sanitation Analysis

    WASH FIT Sanitation Analysis

    Sanitation < 50%
    0%
    0 of 38 facilities
    Sanitation in Bottom 3 Domains
    0%
    0 of 38 facilities
    Sanitation Among Top 3 Best Performing Domains
    0%
    0 of 38 facilities
    Sanitation Performance Distribution
    Sanitation in Bottom 3 Domains
    Sanitation Among Top 3 Best Performing Domains
    Mean Scores by Domain Across All Facilities
    Analysis Summary
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) have sanitation scores below 50%, indicating critical need for improvement
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) have excellent sanitation scores above 70%
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) rank sanitation among their bottom three performing domains
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) rank sanitation among their top three best performing domains
    • • The majority of facilities (0%) have sanitation scores between 50-70%, showing moderate performance

    Sanitation, Water Supply, and Waste Management Domains

  • Our Study shows Waste Management is the most Critical Domain in Health Facilites

    Our project has trained and assessed 38 health facilities in conflict-affected regions of Ukraine using the WASH FIT improvement framework.

    WASH FIT is a risk-based quality improvement tool covering the aspects of WASH and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) in the Health Facility:

    1. Water Supply
    2. Sanitation
    3. Hand Hygiene
    4. Waste Management
    5. Environmental cleaning
    6. Energy and Environment
    7. Human Resource and Facility Management

    In today’s article, we will analyze the key findings of the Water Supply Domain.

    Waste Management Domain Analysis – Methods

    We assess sanitation facilities infrastructure across 20 standard WASH FIT indicators, each of which is scored 0, 1, or 2 depending on the criticality of the issue:

    • 0: Gap (Non-functional)
    • 1: Partially addressed
    • 2: Fully functioning

    To get the relative final score, we devided absolute score by max value of 40 (14*2) and multiplied by 100% (as a percentage of the maximum).

    For example, if the facility scored 16 points, the relative score is 40% (16/40*100%).

    Analysis: Criticality and Context

    We break down that percentage into three criticality categories:

    • Severe (<50%),
    • Moderate (50–70%),
    • Mild (>70%).

    Looking at our first graph, the situation is largely manageable: less than 25% of assessed facilities fall into the “Critical” category (Relative score < 50%) with major gaps in their water domain.

    Waste Management as Worst and Best perfoming Domain

    Finally, we contextualize against the other six domains in the WASH FIT assessment (such as water supply or sanitation). We analyze whether Waste Management lands in a facility’s “Top 3” or “Bottom 3” performing areas.

    The Analysis leaves very little room for doubt:

    Waste Management is the most critical area of concern in Ukraine.

    It frequently ranks in the Bottom 3 worst-performing domains, significantly underperforming across all geographical areas.

    The bottom line:

    There are 4-fold chances of the Water domain underperforms comparing to the domains such as Water Supply, Energy, and Enviroment, Environmental cleaning, or Sanitation.

    WASH FIT Waste Management Analysis

    WASH FIT Waste Management Analysis

    Waste Management < 50%
    0%
    0 of 38 facilities
    Waste in Bottom 3 Domains
    0%
    0 of 38 facilities
    Waste Among Top 3 Best Performing Domains
    0%
    0 of 38 facilities
    Waste Management Performance Distribution
    Waste in Bottom 3 Domains
    Waste Among Top 3 Best Performing Domains
    Mean Scores by Domain Across All Facilities
    Analysis Summary
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) have waste management scores below 50%, indicating critical need for improvement
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) have excellent waste management scores above 70%
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) rank waste management among their bottom three performing domains
    • 0% of facilities (0 facilities) rank waste management among their top three best performing domains
    • • The majority of facilities (0%) have waste management scores between 50-70%, showing moderate performance

    Water Supply and Waste Management Domains

    When you place water supply and waste management side by side, they read like mirror reflections. Water supply is very likely to come out ahead of other domains in WASH FIT studies, while waste management is four times more likely to fall behind the rest.

    Waste Management performance

  • What You can Learn from the Largest WASH FIT Assesment of 38 Health Facilties in Ukraine

    Our project has trained and assessed 38 health facilities in conflict-affected regions of Ukraine using the WASH FIT improvement framework.

    WASH FIT is a risk-based quality improvement tool that allows you to see the needs in key WASH and IPC areas of the Health Facility:

    1. Water Supply
    2. Sanitation
    3. Hand Hygiene
    4. Waste Management
    5. Environmental cleaning
    6. Energy and Environment
    7. Human Resource and Facility Management

    In today’s article, we will analyze the key findings of the Water Supply Domain.

    Water Domain Analysis – Methods

    We assess WASH infrastructure across 17 specific indicators, each of which is scored 0, 1, or 2 depending on the criticality of the issue:

    • 0: Gap (Non-functional)
    • 1: Partially addressed
    • 2: Fully functioning

    To get the relative final score, we devided absolute score by max value of 34 (17*2) and multiplied by 100% (as a percentage of the maximum).

    For example, if the facility scored 25 points, the relative score is 73.5% (25/34*100%).

    Analysis: Criticality and Context

    We break down that percentage into three criticality categories:

    • Severe (<50%),
    • Moderate (50–70%),
    • Mild (>70%).

    Looking at our first graph, the situation is largely manageable: less than 25% of assessed facilities fall into the “Critical” category (Relative score < 50%) with major gaps in their water domain.

    Water as Worst and Best perfoming Domain

    Finally, we contextualize Water against the other six domains in the WASH FIT assessment (such as sanitation or waste management). We analyze whether Water lands in a facility’s “Top 3” or “Bottom 3” performing areas.

    The results we achieved are quite pronounced:

    Water supply is consistently one of the strongest domains in Ukraine.

    It frequently ranks in the Top 3, significantly outperforming areas like environmental cleaning and waste management.

    According to our study, the 2-fold chances of the Water domain outperform domains such as Waste Management, Environmental cleaning, or Sanitation.

    WASH FIT Water Domain Analysis

    WASH FIT Water Domain Analysis

    Water Supply < 50%
    21.1%
    8 of 38 facilities
    Water in Bottom 3 Domains
    10.5%
    4 of 38 facilities
    Water in Top 3 Best Performing Domains
    31.6%
    12 of 38 facilities
    Water Supply Performance Distribution
    Water in Bottom 3 Domains
    Water Among Top 3 Best Performing Domains
    Mean Scores by Domain Across All Facilities
    Analysis Summary
    • 21.1% of facilities (8 facilities) have water supply scores below 50%, indicating critical need for improvement
    • 10.5% of facilities (4 facilities) have excellent water supply scores above 70%
    • 10.5% of facilities (4 facilities) rank water supply among their bottom three performing domains
    • 31.6% of facilities (12 facilities) rank water supply among their top three best performing domains, indicating water is not a major problem at these locations
    • • The majority of facilities (68.4%) have water scores between 50-70%, showing moderate performance

  • Top 5 Ways to Improve IPC in Hospitals and Clinics of Ukraine

    Top 5 Ways to Improve IPC in Hospitals and Clinics of Ukraine

    Infection prevention and control in healthcare facilities isn’t just about washing hands and following protocols—though those are crucial. The physical infrastructure of a facility can either support or undermine even the best IPC practices. Think of it this way: you can train staff perfectly, but if your building is working against you, you’re fighting an uphill battle.

    In the previous article, our expert Nadiia already touched on the surface of the evidence-based infrastructure interventions that can genuinely strengthen IPC across different types of healthcare facilities.

    This time, we come up with another 5 interventions focusing on IPC infrastructure, which patients and staff would interact with.

    Fresh Air Isn’t Just Nice—It’s IPC Gold

    Here’s something fascinating: a recent study led by Diana Bastien and Dusan Licina from research institutions in Denmark and Switzerland looked at what happens when you give people real-time feedback about CO2 levels in their spaces. They wanted to know if making people aware of air quality would actually change their behavior—would they open windows more often?

    The results? Ventilation rates doubled in about 70% of the spaces they monitored. Just by knowing when the air quality was getting poor, people took action. It’s a beautiful example of how awareness creates positive feedback loops.

    CO2 monitoring device

    What does this mean for healthcare facilities? The devices they used ranged from fancy units with dashboards and big screens to super simple monitors that just alert you when CO2 is reaching unhealthy levels. For a primary care office or outpatient clinic, putting one of these monitors on the doctor’s desk could be transformative. It’s a great reminder for letting the room breathe and an effective tool for boosting the IPC.

    Right now, improving natural ventilation is considered a top-priority intervention in many settings, sometimes even more effective than bactericidal UV lamps (especially if you don’t have radimeters to measure their efficiency). And it’s so simple. Just letting fresh air in can solve multiple problems at once.

    When Fresh Air Isn’t Enough: Negative Pressure Rooms

    Primary care facilities might do fine with better ventilation, but hospitals—especially those with infectious disease departments, TB centers, or surgical wards—need more robust containment strategies.

    Every hospital in Ukraine should have a negative-pressure isolation capacity. These are specialized rooms where the air pressure inside is lower than the surrounding areas, which means air flows into the room, not out of it. Why does this matter? Because if you have a patient with a suspected or confirmed contagious disease—tuberculosis, COVID-19, measles, you name it—the contaminated air stays contained. It can’t drift out into the hallway or reach other patients.

    Negative pressure ward

    The physics is straightforward: negative pressure compared to the environment means one-way airflow—in, not out. There are currently four main types of isolation rooms, two of which (Class N and Class Q types) are negative pressure.

    These rooms aren’t optional infrastructure for modern hospitals. They’re essential for managing infectious patients safely, protecting both other patients and healthcare workers from airborne transmission.

    Breaking the Contact Chain: Go Touchless to Bost IPC

    One of the simplest infrastructure upgrades you can make is eliminating unnecessary physical contact points. Infections spread through touch—it’s one of the most common transmission routes, both for diseases patients bring into the facility and for preventing cross-contamination between patients.

    Sensor antiseptic disponsor

    The solution? Sensors everywhere:

    • Sensor-activated water taps (no more touching contaminated faucets);
    • Automatic liquid soap dispensers;
    • Touchless hand sanitizer stations.

    These aren’t luxury items—they’re practical IPC tools, but Soviet era hospitals in Ukraine, which account for more than 80% of health facilities in the country, do not have them.

    Patients and visitors appreciate these modern additions and rate facilities higher in both safety and quality.

    The Heart of the Matter: Sterilization Service Departments

    Now let’s talk about specialized care—multi-disciplinary hospitals, large regional facilities, and infectious disease centers. These places need a properly functioning Sterilization Service Department (SSD). This isn’t negotiable.

    SSDs provide centralized reprocessing of medical devices. Without proper sterilization infrastructure, you’re putting patients at serious risk every time you use a reprocessed instrument.

    Unsealing the surgical equipment

    Know Your Risk Categories

    Medical devices fall into different risk categories based on how they’re used:

    High-risk devices need complete sterilization:

    • Surgical instruments that penetrate tissue
    • Implants and prosthetics
    • Rigid endoscopes
    • Syringes and needles

    Intermediate-risk devices need high-level disinfection:

    • Respiratory equipment
    • Non-invasive flexible endoscopes
    • Anesthesia equipment
    • Urinary collection bottles

    Each category requires different processing levels, and your SSD needs to handle all of them correctly. The higher the risk, the more resources SSDs need to properly decontaminate and pack the equipment.

    The Complete Reprocessing Chain

    The World Health Organization’s guidance on decontamination and reprocessing of medical devices lays out the essential steps. Your SSD should manage the first five steps of this chain:

    1. Collection and transport from clinical areas
    2. Cleaning to physically remove contamination and organic material
    3. Disinfection using validated chemical or thermal methods
    4. Sterilization for high-risk items
    5. Packaging to maintain sterility until use

    Then comes storage, use, and transportation back to SSDs.

    What Does a Proper SSD Need?

    Infrastructure requirements aren’t trivial:

    • Separate zones for dirty and clean processing (strict workflow separation)
    • Industrial washer-disinfectors with validated cycles;
    • Steam sterilizers (autoclaves) with monitoring systems;
    • Alternative sterilization for heat-sensitive devices (ethylene oxide, hydrogen peroxide systems);
    • High-quality water systems (water purity directly impacts sterilization effectiveness);
    • Sealed packaging devices
    • Quality monitoring: biological indicators, chemical indicators, documentation systems
    Sealed Packaging devices

    This isn’t a small investment, but the risks are quite significant, and the economic burden of hospital-associated infection is estimated by NIH at 28 -45 billion USD in the US alone.

    Automatic Doors: IPC Meets Universal Design

    Here’s where infection control and accessibility beautifully intersect: automatic doors operated by infrared or motion sensors.

    From an IPC perspective, automatic doors eliminate another contact point. No one touches door handles—which means fewer opportunities for pathogen transmission. This is especially valuable in surgery departments where maintaining clean hands is critical, or in high-traffic areas where door handles get touched constantly.

    Automatic doors

    But there’s more. The Americans with Disabilities Act specifies that doors should open with minimal force—about 5 pounds (2.2 kg). Automatic doors blow past this requirement by requiring zero force. They’re a game-changer for:

    • Patients with mobility limitations
    • Healthcare workers transporting equipment
    • Anyone assisting or accompanying patients
    • Staff moving between areas with gloved, sterile hands

    Think about a surgeon exiting an OR with sterile gloves—automatic doors mean they don’t have to compromise sterility to get through the doorway. Or consider a patient in a wheelchair navigating your facility independently. Automatic doors remove barriers on multiple levels.

    This is infrastructure that solves two problems simultaneously: stronger infection prevention and genuinely improved accessibility. That’s an efficient investment.

    Making It Happen: Practical Considerations

    When you’re planning infrastructure improvements, keep these factors in mind:

    Budget realistically: Interventions range from affordable (CO2 monitors, sensor faucets) to significant capital investments (negative pressure rooms, full SSDs). Prioritize based on your facility type and the populations you serve.

    Maintenance plan: Every system needs ongoing care. Budget for service contracts, spare parts, and staff training from day one.

    Train your people: New infrastructure only works if staff know how to use and maintain it properly. SSDs especially need personnel trained in international standards.

    Validate and monitor: How do you know your systems work? Implement quality assurance—biological indicator testing for sterilizers, maintenance logs, and performance verification.

    Phase it in: Limited resources? Develop a prioritized plan. Start with the highest-impact, most cost-effective interventions and build from there.

    IPC interventions

    The Bottom Line

    Infrastructure for infection prevention and control isn’t glamorous, but it’s foundational to safe healthcare delivery. A CO2 monitor in a primary care office, negative pressure rooms in a regional hospital, touchless fixtures throughout a facility, properly equipped SSDs—these aren’t extras. They’re the physical framework that makes effective IPC possible.

    The evidence keeps growing: environmental controls and proper equipment don’t just complement behavioral measures—they multiply their effectiveness. In a world facing antimicrobial resistance and emerging infectious diseases, robust infrastructure isn’t optional.

    Whether you’re planning a new facility or upgrading an existing one, think of IPC infrastructure as creating environments that inherently support safer care. It’s not about adding complexity—it’s about building intelligence into the physical spaces where healthcare happens. When the building itself works in favor of infection prevention, everyone benefits: patients, staff, and the broader community.

  • Why WASH FIT Needs a Cold-Climate Upgrade

    Why WASH FIT Needs a Cold-Climate Upgrade

    If you’re working in crisis response and you aren’t using WASH FIT yet, you probably should be.
    It’s one of the few tools out there that actually helps teams prioritize interventions alongside local leadership in health facilities.

    And when it comes to infection prevention and control (IPC), prioritization is everything. You can’t fix everything at once. You have to know where risk is highest and which system failure will trigger the next outbreak.

    That’s exactly what WASH FIT does well.

    What is WASH FIT

    WASH FIT is a tool designed to assess Health Facilities across 7 domains:

    1. Water
    2. Sanitation
    3. Healthcare waste management
    4. Hand hygiene
    5. Environmental cleaning
    6. Management and workforce
    7. Energy and environment

    Each domain includes between 5 to 20 indicators. Indicators are scored 0, 1, or 2, depending on the level of concern:

    • 2 – No issues identified
    • 1 – The issue is partially addressed
    • 0 – There is a gap
    Sanitation domain, WASH FIT

    WASH FIT and Ukrainian context

    In the Ukrainian context, the Energy and Environment domain appears to be an outlier compared with the other domains

    The first six indicators in this domain repeatedly ask about one major thing: “Are you getting enough energy to sustain a service delivery?“, which was a priority #1 for every program of Health System Strengthening during the first two years of this protracted crisis.

    WASH FIT Energy and Environment

    The next seven, although important, are not really relevant to the Ukrainian context, with the obvious exception of the ventilation indicator and the one assessing light in the delivery rooms. According to our expirience, the light in the delivery room depends on the presence of the reserve power source.

    But the problem is not what these indicators in this domain ask about, but what they leave out. The thermal insulation envelope of health facilities is absent from the framework, despite being a key factor in maintaining indoor thermal comfort.

    Thermal Envelope assesment

    Thermal Comfort and Thermal Envelope

    Numerous studies have shown that the indoor temperature below 18 °C is associated with negative health effects. Lack of thermal comfort might increase the number of days stayed in the hospital, and can impact the quality of healthcare delivery.

    Some researchers argue that thermal comfort can foster the healing process of patients in hospitals, and one study from the School of Civil Engineering in Leeds considers it a life and death issue.

    There are several contributing factors to thermal comfort, such as indoor temperature, humidity, ventilation, etc.

    Most of the experts concluded that indoor temperature is the major determinant. Jonas Alex, in his textbook “Cold exposure and thermal
    Comfort among patients in prehospital emergency care
    ” defines temperature as a main predicament to the thermally comfortable environment:

    Humans can only be in the thermal comfort zone when heat production and heat loss are in balance (Kingma et al., 2012). In a thermally comfortable environment, no cold or heat should be experienced.

    In the Ukrainian context, thermal comfort in health facilities can be defined by several factors:

    1. Heat production – currently is not a part of the WASH FIT assessment.
    2. Heat loss – assessment of the thermal insulation / thermal envelope. Not a part of the WASH FIT.
    3. Ventilation – assessed by the WASH FIT.

    Why the Thermal Envelope Assessment is not a part of the WASH FIT

    Most countries where WASH FIT was originally applied intensively sit between 30° and -30° latitude.

    WASH FIT Countries by Latitude Distribution

    Between 30°N and 30°S: 86.76% (59 countries)
    Beyond ±30° latitude: 13.24% (9 countries) ❄️

    In those regions:

    • heating is rarely a survival issue,
    • buildings aren’t designed for extreme winter,
    • Seasonal cold doesn’t dominate infrastructure risk.

    But that’s not the case for countries like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Lesotho, where the low average dips sub zero.

    In the table below, among all countries where WASH FIT has been implemented, those located north of 30° or south of –30° latitude may face winter-related challenges in maintaining thermal comfort in hospitals and outpatient facilities, which can in turn increase the risk of certain infections.

    Country Coldest Month Avg Temp (°C) Southern Latitude (NH) / Northern Latitude (SH)
    Kazakhstan ❄️ January -10 to -5 40.6
    Tajikistan ❄️ January -2 to 0 36.7
    Ukraine ❄️ January -4 to -1 44.4
    Lesotho ❄️ June-July 0-3 -30.7
    Bhutan January 4 to 8 26.7
    Syrian Arab Republic ❄️ January 6 to 8 32.3
    Jordan January 8 to 10 29.2
    Peru June-August 8 to 20 -18.4
    Iraq January 9 to 11 29.1
    South Africa ❄️ June-July 10-12 -34.8
    Pakistan January 10-12 23.7
    Nepal January 10-12 26.3
    Tunisia ❄️ January 10-12 30.2
    Lebanon ❄️ January-February 10-12 33.1
    occupied Palestinian territory ❄️ January 11-13 31.2
    Eswatini June-July 12-14 -27.3
    Ecuador June-August 12-26 -5
    Namibia June-July 13-15 -28.6
    Zimbabwe June-July 13-15 -22.4
    Egypt January 13-15 22
    Madagascar July 13-16 -25.6
    India January 14-16 8.1
    Malawi June-July 14-17 -17.1
    Bahrain January 14-17 25.5
    Zambia June-July 15-17 -18.1
    Rwanda June-July 15-17 -2.8
    Saudi Arabia January 15-17 16.4
    Ethiopia November-December 15-18 3.4
    Kenya July-August 16-18 -4.7
    Venezuela December-January 16-27 0.6
    United Republic of Tanzania June-July 17-19 -11.7
    Qatar January 17-19 24.5
    Viet Nam January 17-20 8.6
    Bangladesh January 18-19 20.7
    Mozambique June-July 18-20 -26.9
    Angola June-July 18-20 -18
    Uganda June-July 20-22 -1.5
    Lao PDR December-January 20-22 13.9
    Chad December-January 20-23 7.4
    Sudan January 20-23 8.7
    Myanmar December-January 20-23 9.8
    Niger January 20-23 11.7
    DRC July 21-23 -13.5
    Fiji July-August 22-23 -20.7
    Vanuatu July-August 22-23 -20.2
    Mali January 22-24 10.2
    Belize January 22-24 15.9
    Haiti January-February 22-24 18
    Comoros July-August 23-24 -12.4
    Gambia January 23-24 13.1
    Papua New Guinea July 23-25 -11.7
    Djibouti December-January 23-25 10.9
    Liberia August 24-25 4.4
    Ghana August 24-25 4.7
    Togo August 24-25 6.1
    Benin August 24-25 6.2
    Sierra Leone August 24-25 7
    Guinea August 24-25 7.2
    Guinea-Bissau January 24-25 11
    Jamaica January-February 24-25 17.7
    Somalia July-August 24-26 -1.7
    Nigeria August 24-26 4.3
    Burkina Faso January 24-26 9.4
    Cambodia January 24-26 10.4
    Indonesia July-August 25-26 -11
    Philippines January 25-26 4.6
    Sri Lanka December-January 25-27 5.9
    Maldives December-January 26-27 -0.7

    WASH FIT was implemented in the warm climate

    The chart below summarizes the table and shows that only nine countries have an average temperature in the coldest month below 10°C, while in nearly 60 countries it remains above that level.

    Countries by Coldest Temperature

    Below 10°C: 13.24% (9 countries) ❄️
    10°C and above: 86.76% (59 countries)

    If we group countries by their geographic position and look at where colder winters occur, a clear pattern emerges. Countries located outside the ±30-degree latitude band are far more likely to experience cold winters. In fact, 5 out of the 9 countries in this group have noticeably colder conditions during the coldest month.

    The picture is completely different for countries located between 30° North and 30° South. Here, the pattern flips. Only 4 out of 59 countries — less than 10% — experience colder winters in this zone.

    Cold Countries Beyond ±30° Latitude

    Below 10°C: 55.56% (5 countries) ❄️
    10°C and above: 44.44% (4 countries)

    Cold Countries Between 30°N and 30°S

    Below 10°C: 6.78% (4 countries) ❄️
    10°C and above: 93.22% (55 countries)

    Integrating the Therma Envelope Assessment Checklist into the official WASH FIT tool

    So our team put together a Thermal Envelope Assessment checklist that includes heat loss by the building and heat production by the heating system — everything from visually inspecting windows, doors, walls, ceilings, and attics to looking at how well a facility actually holds heat during winter.

    In our view, these assessments are especially relevant for countries outside the ±30° latitude zone or where the average temperature of the coldest month drops below 10°C.

    The idea is simple: this checklist and its indicators can be easily integrated into the official WASH FIT tool, specifically under the Energy and Environment domain, to make it more realistic for cold-climate settings.