Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:03:09.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probabilistic Measurement of Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2015

Bala Hota ,
Paul Malpiedi ,
Scott K. Fridkin ,
John Martin  and
William Trick
Bala Hota*
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
Paul Malpiedi
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Scott K. Fridkin
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
John Martin
Affiliation:
Premier Research Institute, Washington, DC
William Trick
Affiliation:
Collaborative Research Unit, Cook County Health and Hospitals System, Chicago, Illinois
*
Address correspondence to Bala Hota, MD, MPH, Internal Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Office 364, 1700 W Van Buren St, Chicago, IL 60612 (Bala_hota@rush.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To develop a probabilistic method for measuring central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates that reduces the variability associated with traditional, manual methods of applying CLABSI surveillance definitions.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective cohort study of bacteremia episodes among patients hospitalized in adult patient-care units; the study evaluated presence of CLABSI.

SETTING

Hospitals that used SafetySurveillor software system (Premier) and who also reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN).

PATIENTS

Patients were identified from a stratified sample from all eligible blood culture isolates from all eligible hospital units to generate a final set with an equal distribution (ie, 20%) from each unit type. Units were divided a priori into 5 major groups: medical intensive care unit, surgical intensive care unit, medical-surgical intensive care unit, hematology unit, or general medical wards.

INTERVENTIONS

Episodes were reviewed by 2 experts, and a selection of discordant reviews were re-reviewed. Data were joined with NHSN data for hospitals for in-plan months. A predictive model was created; model performance was assessed using the c statistic in a validation set and comparison with NHSN reported rates for in-plan months.

RESULTS

A final model was created with predictors of CLABSI. The c statistic for the final model was 0.75 (0.68–0.80). Rates from regression modeling correlated better with expert review than NHSN-reported rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a regression model based on the clinical characteristics of the bacteremia outperformed traditional infection preventionist surveillance compared with an expert-derived reference standard.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37(2):149–155

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 37 , Supplement 2 , February 2016 , pp. 149 - 155
Copyright
© 2015 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

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

REFERENCES

1. Umscheid, CA, Mitchell, MD, Doshi, JA, Agarwal, R, Williams, K, Brennan, PJ. Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:101–114.Google Scholar
2. Pronovost, P, Needham, D, Berenholtz, S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2725–2732.Google Scholar
3. McKibben, L, Horan, TC, Tokars, JI, et al. Guidance on public reporting of healthcare-associated infections: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:580–587.Google Scholar
4. Pronovost, PJ, Miller, M, Wachter, RM. The GAAP in quality measurement and reporting. JAMA 2007;298:1800–1802.Google Scholar
5. Passaretti, CL, Barclay, P, Pronovost, P, Perl, TM. Public reporting of health care-associated infections (HAIs): approach to choosing HAI measures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:768–774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Panzer, RJ, Gitomer, RS, Greene, WH, Webster, PR, Landry, KR, Riccobono, CA. Increasing demands for quality measurement. JAMA 2013;310:1971–1980.Google Scholar
7. Lin, MY, Hota, B, Khan, YM, et al. Quality of traditional surveillance for public reporting of nosocomial bloodstream infection rates. JAMA 2010;304:2035–2041.Google Scholar
8. Mayer, J, Greene, T, Howell, J, et al. Agreement in classifying bloodstream infections among multiple reviewers conducting surveillance. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:364–370.Google Scholar
9. McBryde, ES, Brett, J, Russo, PL, Worth, LJ, Bull, AL, Richards, MJ. Validation of statewide surveillance system data on central line-associated bloodstream infection in intensive care units in Australia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:1045–1049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Worth, LJ, Brett, J, Bull, AL, McBryde, ES, Russo, PL, Richards, MJ. Impact of revising the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System definition for catheter-related bloodstream infection in ICU: reproducibility of the National Healthcare Safety Network case definition in an Australian cohort of infection control professionals. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:643–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. DiGiorgio, MJ, Fatica, C, Oden, M, et al. Development of a modified surveillance definition of central line–associated bloodstream infections for patients with hematologic malignancies. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:865–868.Google Scholar
12. Gaur, AH, Bundy, DG, Gao, C, et al. Surveillance of hospital-acquired central line–associated bloodstream infections in pediatric hematology-oncology patients: lessons learned, challenges ahead. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:316–320.Google Scholar
13. Steinberg, JP, Robichaux, C, Tejedor, SC, Reyes, MD, Jacob, JT. Distribution of pathogens in central line–associated bloodstream infections among patients with and without neutropenia following chemotherapy: evidence for a proposed modification to the current surveillance definition. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Sexton, DJ, Chen, LF, Moehring, R, Thacker, PA, Anderson, DJ. Casablanca redux: we are shocked that public reporting of rates of central line–associated bloodstream infections are inaccurate. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:932–935.Google Scholar
15. Rakow, T, Wright, RJ, Spiegelhalter, DJ, Bull, C. The pros and cons of funnel plots as an aid to risk communication and patient decision making. Br J Psychol 2015;106:327–348.Google Scholar
16. Schulman, J, Spiegelhalter, DJ, Parry, G. How to interpret your dot: decoding the message of clinical performance indicators. J Perinatol 2008;28:588–596.Google Scholar
17. Bloodstream infection event (central line-associated bloodstream infection and non-central line-associated bloodstream infection). CDC website. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/4PSC_CLABScurrent.pdf. Published January 2015. Updated April 2015. Accessed August 21, 2015.Google Scholar
18. Sexton, DJ, Chen, LF, Anderson, DJ. Current definitions of central line-associated bloodstream infection: is the emperor wearing clothes? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:1286–1289.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hota supplementary material

Hota supplementary material 1

Download Hota supplementary material(File)
File 120.8 KB