Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:15:17.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variations in Identification of Healthcare-Associated Infections

Part of: SHEA Research Network Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Sara C. Keller ,
Darren R. Linkin ,
Neil O. Fishman  and
Ebbing Lautenbach
Sara C. Keller
Affiliation:
Center for Healthcare Improvement and Patient Safety, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Darren R. Linkin
Affiliation:
Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Neil O. Fishman
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Ebbing Lautenbach
Affiliation:
Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Little is known about whether those performing healthcare-associated infection (HAI) surveillance vary in their interpretations of HAI definitions developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). Our primary objective was to characterize variations in these interpretations using clinical vignettes. We also describe predictors of variation in responses.

Design.

Cross-sectional study.

Setting.

United States.

Participants.

A sample of US-based members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network.

Methods.

Respondents assessed whether each of 6 clinical vignettes met criteria for an NHSN-defined HAI. Individual- and institutional-level data were also gathered.

Results.

Surveys were distributed to 143 SHEA Research Network members from 126 hospitals. In total, 113 responses were obtained, representing at least 61 unique hospitals (30 respondents did not identify a hospital); 79.2% (84 of 106 nonmissing responses) were infection preventionists, and 79.4% (81 of 102 nonmissing responses) worked at academic hospitals. Among the 6 vignettes, the proportion of respondents correctly characterizing the vignettes was as low as 27.3%. Combining all 6 vignettes, the mean percentage of correct responses was 61.1% (95% confidence interval, 57.7%–63.8%). Percentage of correct responses was associated with presence of a clinical background (ie, nursing or physician degrees) but not with hospital size or infection prevention and control department characteristics.

Conclusions.

Substantial heterogeneity exists in the application of HAI definitions in this survey of infection preventionists and hospital epidemiologists. Our data suggest a need to better clarify these definitions, especially when comparing HAI rates across institutions.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 34 , Issue 7 , July 2013 , pp. 678 - 686
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2013

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.Scott, RD II. The Direct Medical Costs of Healthcare-Associated Infections in U.S. Hospitals and the Benefits of Prevention. Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/hai/pdfs/hai/scott_costpaper.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2011.Google Scholar
2.Klevens, RM, Edwards, JR, Richards, CL, et al. Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in US hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep 2007;122:160–166.Google Scholar
3.Hollenbeak, CS, Murphy, D, Dunagan, WC, Fraser, VJ. Nonran-dom selection and the attributable cost of surgical-site infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:177–182.Google Scholar
4.Stone, PW, Glied, SA, McNair, PD, et al. CMS changes in reimbursement for HAIs: setting a research agenda. Med Care 2010;48:433–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.HHS action plan to prevent healthcare-associated infections. US Department of Health and Human Services website, http://www.hhs.gov/ash/initiatives/hai/actionplan/hhs_hai_action_plan_final_06222009.pdf. Accessed May 9, 2013.Google Scholar
6.Pronovost, PJ, Marsteller, JA, Goeschel, CA. Preventing bloodstream infections: a measurable national success story in quality improvement. Health Aff 2011;30:628–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Horan, TC, Andrus, M, Dudeck, MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infection in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:309–332.Google Scholar
8.Agodi, A, Auxilia, F, Barchitta, M, et al. Building a benchmark through active surveillance of intensive care unit-acquired infections: the Italian network SPIN-UTI. J Hosp Infect 2010;74: 258–265.Google Scholar
9.Masia, MD, Barchitta, M, Liperi, G, Cantu, AP, Alliata, E. Validation of intensive care unit-acquired infection surveillance in the Italian SPIN-UTI network. J Hosp Infect 2010;76:139–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.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.Google Scholar
11.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
12.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Oh, JY, Cunningham, MC, Beldavs, ZG, et al. Statewide validation of hospital-reported central line-associated bloodstream infections: Oregon, 2009. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(5): 439–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Nieder, MF. The harder you look, the more you find: catheter-associated bloodstream infection surveillance variability. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(8):585–595.Google Scholar
15.Klompas, M, Khan, Y, Kleinman, K, et al. Multicenter evaluation of a novel surveillance paradigm for complications of mechanical ventilation. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e18062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Klompas, M, Kleinman, K, Khan, Y, et al. Rapid and reproducible surveillance for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:370–377.Google Scholar
17.Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare program; hospital inpatient value-based purchasing program. Final rule. Fed Regist 2011;76(88):26490–26547.Google Scholar
18.Lautenbach, E. Expanding the research agenda for infection prevention: the SHEA Research Consortium. Presented at: Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of Association Annual Scientific Meeting; April 1-4, 2011; Dallas.Google Scholar
19.Vermund, SH, Fawal, H. Emerging infectious diseases and professional integrity: thoughts for the new millennium. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:497–499.Google Scholar
20.Backman, LA, Melchreit, R, Rodriguez, R. Validation of the surveillance and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infection data to a state health department. Am J Infect Control 2010;38;832–838.Google Scholar
21.Fraser, TG, Gordon, SM. CLABSI in immunocompromised patients: a valuable patient centered outcome? Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:1446–1450.Google Scholar
22.Ehrenkranz, NJ, Richter, EI, Phillips, PM, Shultz, LM. An apparent excess of operative site infections: analyses to evaluate false-positive diagnoses. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:712–716.Google Scholar
23.Emori, TG, Edwards, JR, Culver, DH, et al. Accuracy of reporting nosocomial infections in intensive-care-unit patients to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System: a pilot study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:308–316.Google Scholar
24.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Improving Surveillance for Ventilator-Associated Events in Adults, http://www.cdc .gov/nhsn/PDFs/vae/CDC_VAE_CommunicationsSummary-for-compliance_20120313.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed August 3, 2012.Google Scholar
25.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
26.Woeltje, KF, McMullen, KM, Butler, AM, Goris, AJ, Doherty, JA. Electronic surveillance for healthcare-associated central line-associated bloodstream infections outside the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:1086–1090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Hota, B, Lin, M, Doherty, JA, et al. Formulation of a model for automating infection surveillance: algorithmic detection of central-line associated bloodstream infection. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010;17:42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Rubin, MA, Mayer, J, Greene, T, et al. An agent-based model for evaluating surveillance methods for catheter-related bloodstream infection. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008;2008:631–635.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Platt, R, Yokoe, DS, Sands, KE. Automated methods for surveillance of surgical site infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:212–216.Google Scholar
30.Yokoe, DS, Noskin, GA, Cunningham, SM, et al. Enhanced identification of postoperative infections among inpatients. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;10:1924–1930.Google Scholar
31.Woeltje, KF, Butler, AM, Goris, AJ, et al. Automated surveillance for central line-associated bloodstream infection in intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:842–846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Leal, J, Gregson, DB, Ross, T, demons, WW, Church, DL, Laupland, KB. Development of a novel electronic surveillance system for monitoring of bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:740–747.Google Scholar
33.Coello, R, Brannigan, E, Lawson, W, Wickens, H, Holmes, A. Prevalence of healthcare device-associated infection using point prevalence surveys of antimicrobial prescribing and existing electronic data. J Hosp Infect 2011;78:264–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Lautenbach, E, Saint, S, Henderson, DK, Harris, AD. Initial response of health care institutions to emergence of H1N1 influenza: experiences, obstacles, and perceived future needs. Clin Infect Dis 2010;50:523–527.Google Scholar
35.Morgan, DL, Meddings, J, Saint, S, et al. Does nonpayment for hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infections lead to overtesting and increased antimicrobial prescribing? Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:923–929.Google Scholar