Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:56:28.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Device-Associated Infection Rates for Non–Intensive Care Unit Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Ralf-Peter Vonberg ,
M. Behnke ,
C. Geffers ,
D. Sohr ,
H. Rüden ,
M. Dettenkofer  and
P. Gastmeier
Ralf-Peter Vonberg*
Affiliation:
German National Reference Center for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections Division of Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hospital Epidemiology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany
M. Behnke
Affiliation:
German National Reference Center for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charite-University Medicine, Free University and Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin
C. Geffers
Affiliation:
German National Reference Center for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charite-University Medicine, Free University and Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin
D. Sohr
Affiliation:
German National Reference Center for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charite-University Medicine, Free University and Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin
H. Rüden
Affiliation:
German National Reference Center for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charite-University Medicine, Free University and Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin
M. Dettenkofer
Affiliation:
German National Reference Center for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections Institute of Environmental Medicine and Hospital Epidemiology, University Medical Center, University Hospital of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
P. Gastmeier
Affiliation:
German National Reference Center for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections Division of Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hospital Epidemiology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany
*
Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hospital Epidemiology, Medical School Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Strasse 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany (Vonberg.Ralf@MH-Hannover.DE)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background.

Reference data from intensive care units (ICUs) are not applicable to non-ICU patients because of the differences in device use rates, length of stay, and severity of underlying diseases among the patient populations. In contrast to the huge amount of data available for ICU patients, appropriate surveillance data for non-ICU patients have been missing in Germany.

Objective.

To establish a new module (“DEVICE-KISS”) of the German Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System for generating stratified reference data for non-ICU wards.

Setting.

Non-ICU patients from 42 German hospitals.

Methods.

Monthly patient-days, device-days and nosocomial infections (NIs) (using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions) were counted. Device use rates were calculated, and NI rates were stratified by different medical specialities.

Results.

From July 2002 through June 2004, among the 77 wards, there were a total of 536,955 patient-days and 74,188 device-days (for CVC-associated primary bloodstream infections, there were 181,401 patient-days and 8,317 central vascular catheter [CVC]-days in 29 wards; for urinary catheter–associated urinary tract infections, there were 445,536 patient-days and 65,871 urinary catheter–days in 65 wards) and 483 NIs (36 bloodstream infections and 447 urinary tract infections). The mean device use rates were 4.6 device-days per 100 patient-days for CVCs (29 wards) and 14.8 device-days per 100 patient-days for urinary catheters (65 wards), respectively. Mean device-associated NI rates were 4.3 infections per 1,000 CVC-days for CVC-associated bloodstream infections and 6.8 infections per 1,000 urinary catheter–days for catheter-associated urinary tract infections.

Conclusions

DEVICE-KISS allows non-ICUs to recognize an outlier position with regard to NIs by providing well-founded reference data for non-ICU patients.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , April 2006 , pp. 357 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Obasanjo, O, Perl, TM. Cost-benefit and effectiveness of nosocomial surveillance methods. Curr Clin Top Infect Dis 2001; 21:391–406.Google Scholar
2.Eickhoff, TC, Brachman, PW, Bennett, JV, Brown, JF. Surveillance of nosocomial infections in community hospitals. I. Surveillance methods, effectiveness, and initial results. J Infect Dis 1969; 120:305–317.Google Scholar
3.Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121:182–205.Google Scholar
4.Gaynes, R, Richards, C, Edwards, J, et al. Feeding back surveillance data to prevent hospital-acquired infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001; 7:295–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Jarvis, WR. Benchmarking for prevention: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system experience. Infection 2003;31(Suppl 2):44–48.Google Scholar
6.Zuschneid, I, Schwab, F, Geffers, C, Ruden, H, Gastmeier, P. Reducing central venous catheter-associated primary bloodstream infections in intensive care units is possible: data from the German nosocomial infection surveillance system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:501–505.Google Scholar
7.Gastmeier, P, Geffers, C, Sohr, D, Dettenkofer, M, Daschner, F, Ruden, H. Five years working with the German nosocomial infection surveillance system (Krankenhaus Infektions Surveillance System). Am J Infect Control 2003; 31:316–321.Google Scholar
8.Emori, TG, Culver, DH, Horan, TC, et al. National nosocomial infections surveillance system (NNIS): description of surveillance methods. Am J Infect Control 1991; 19:19–35.Google Scholar
9.Gastmeier, P, Geffers, C, Schwab, F, Fitzner, J, Obladen, M, Ruden, H. Development of a surveillance system for nosocomial infections: the component for neonatal intensive care units in Germany. J Hosp Infect 2004; 57:126–131.Google Scholar
10.Dettenkofer, M, Ebner, W, Bertz, H, et al. Surveillance of nosocomial infections in adult recipients of allogeneic and autologous bone marrow and peripheral blood stem-cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2003; 31:795–801.Google Scholar
11.Mlangeni, D, Babikir, R, Gastmeier, P, Daschner, F. AMBU-KISS: quality control in outpatient surgery. Chirurg 2004; 75:265–268.Google Scholar
12.Maki, DG. Risk factors for nosocomial infection in intensive care: ‘devices vs nature’ and goals for the next decade. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149:30–35.Google Scholar
13.Jarvis, WR, Edwards, JR, Culver, DH, et al. Nosocomial infection rates in adult and pediatric intensive care units in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Am J Med 1991; 91:185S–191S.Google Scholar
14.Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988; 16:128–140.Google Scholar
15.Trick, WE, Vernon, MO, Welbel, SF, Wisniewski, MF, Jernigan, JA, Weinstein, RA. Unnecessary use of central venous catheters: the need to look outside the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25:266–268.Google Scholar
16.Climo, M, Diekema, D, Warren, DK, et al. Prevalence of the use of central venous access devices within and outside of the intensive care unit: results of a survey among hospitals in the prevention epicenter program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:942–945.Google Scholar
17.Sauerwein, D. Urinary tract infection in patients with neurogenic bladder dysfunction. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2002; 19:592–597.Google Scholar
18.Wischnewski, N, Kampf, G, Gastmeier, P, et al. Prevalence of primary bloodstream infections in representative German hospitals and their association with central and peripheral vascular catheters. Zentralbl Bakteriol 1998; 287:93–103.Google Scholar
19.Petrosillo, N, Viale, P, Nicastri, E, et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infections among human immunodeficiency virus–infected patients: incidence and risk factors. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34:677–685.Google Scholar
20.Gastmeier, P, Weist, K, Schlingmann, J, Schumacher, M, Daschner, F, Ruden, H. Nosocomial infections in Germany—surveillance and prevention. Der Urologe 1997; 37:360–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Goetz, AM, Kedzuf, S, Wagener, M, Muder, RR. Feedback to nursing staff as an intervention to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Am J Infect Control 1999; 27:402–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Merle, V, Germain, JM, Bugel, H, et al. Nosocomial urinary tract infections in urologic patients: assessment of a prospective surveillance program including 10,000 patients. Eur Urol 2002;41:483–489.Google Scholar
23.Gastmeier, P, Sohr, D, Geffers, C, Nassauer, A, Daschner, F, Ruden, H. Are nosocomial infection rates in intensive care units useful benchmark parameters? Infection 2000; 28:346–350.Google Scholar
24.Tokars, JI, Richards, C, Andrus, M, et al. The changing face of surveillance for health care-associated infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:1347–1352.Google Scholar