Search

Twenty-four-hour reports are filled out by nurses daily to monitor nursing home residents and document any changes in resident status. Semistructured interviews conducted with ICPs from 12 southeast Michigan nursing homes showed that although 24-hour reports were used, they were not standardized for infection prevention activities. Our results indicate 24-hour reports can be an effective communication tool and potentially aid in early recognition of infections and outbreaks., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To examine the reporting of hospital-acquired bloodstream infection (HABSI) and central line-associated BSI (CLABSI) rates in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs)., Design: Systematic review of evidence published after 2000 reporting HABSI cumulative incidence, crude HABSI and/or CLABSI rate and total patient-days and/or central line-days for single NICU., Setting: Inpatient., Patients: Neonates admitted to NICU., Main Outcome Measures: To consider the reporting of and relationship between cumulative incidence of BSI and HABSI and/or CLABSI rates., Results: 18 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. There was a wide variability in reporting of HABSI indicators and risk-adjustment strategies with reported crude HABSI and/or CLABSI rates showing an approximately sevenfold variation between centres. Information about NICU size and level of care was not always available. Many studies provided insufficient information about case mix, such as surgical care provision and prematurity. The proportion of total patient-days that were central venous catheters (CVC)-days ranged from 11.7% to 85.4%. Only six studies reported HABSI and CLABSI incidence. Comparing HABSI and CLABSI ranking, we found a relationship between rates., Conclusions: We found significant variability in HABSI rate reporting. Although there appears to be an association between CLABSI and HABSI rates, non-CVC-related BSIs are likely to be highly relevant in some NICUs. If confirmed, and given CLABSI rates are more challenging to collect, it may be more appropriate to use HABSI rates for monitoring NICU healthcare-associated infection (HAI) in some settings. A European network of NICUs using a standardised methodology is required to determine the feasibility and reliability of different risk-adjusted measured of HAI rates.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are considered to be the most frequent adverse event in healthcare delivery. Active efforts to curb HAI have increased across Europe thanks to the growing emphasis on patient safety and quality of care. Recently, there has been dramatic success in improving the quality of patient care by focusing on the implementation of a group or "bundle" of evidenced-based preventive practices to achieve a better outcome than when implemented individually. The project entitled IMPLEMENT is designed to spread and test knowledge on how to implement strategic bundles for infection prevention and management in a diverse sample of European hospitals. The general goal of this project is to provide evidence on how to decrease the incidence of HAI and to improve antibiotic use under routine conditions.

Surveillance and management of health care-associated infections (HAIs) has traditionally relied on analyses of outcome data to elucidate trends in HAI incidence, discover host or treatment risk factors, and facilitate comparisons of HAI rates within and among licensed providers or facilities. This paper explores residual gaps and shortcomings associated with outcome reporting and possible sources of bias that may invalidate intra- and interfacility comparisons. As an alternative to outcome surveillance and reporting, real-time process monitoring and control is proposed. To address the need for uncompromising conformity with preventive measures, the concepts of social entropy, authority, responsibility, and accountability are explored and linked to process control at the bedside., (Copyright © 2011 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Government-mandated reporting of health care-associated infections (HAIs) and new reimbursement regulations place a premium on accurate and reliable detection of HAIs. This commentary addresses the challenges and opportunities of having consistent, well-defined, and continuous methods in place to ensure the reliability and validity of HAI detection and reporting. In addition, such procedures could support the development and expertise of infection preventionists. A Web-based clinical vignette model is suggested for improving HAI reporting for hospitals participating in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network.

Background: The duties of infection control professionals (ICPs) have increased over time, but resources have not increased substantially. Numerous states have passed or have considered mandatory reporting laws for health care-associated infections. Such laws would increase ICPs' work further., Methods: We conducted two surveys of ICPs in Iowa to determine their current responsibilities and resources and to estimate the resources they would need if they were required to report all nosocomial infections to the state., Results: Most hospitals had less than 1 full time equivalent performing infection control (mean = 0.64). Many respondents had several roles within the hospital. Surveillance methods and scope varied by hospital size. Most ICPs did not use catheter days as the denominator for rates of bloodstream infections. Over 50% of Iowa's hospitals are critical access hospitals, most of which did not have intensive care units, and most had very few patients with central venous catheters., Conclusions: Hospitals in Iowa have limited resources for infection control. "One size fits all" public reporting systems are not appropriate for states like Iowa that have a few large hospitals and many small hospitals.

Background: In October 2005, a recall of human tissue for implantation was initiated because one recovery center obtained tissues from donors who were not screened properly for infectious diseases. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended notifying affected patients and offering access to infectious disease testing., Study Design and Methods: A multidisciplinary team was established to provide a framework for responding to the recall. The plan was designed to meet six goals. Steps included patient identification, surgeon and patient notification, patient education and testing, communication of test results, and information for the public., Results: The institution received 55 recalled tissues, of which 48 had been implanted into 30 patients undergoing neurosurgical, orthopedic, and general surgical procedures. Patients were identified and sent notification letters within 2 weeks of the FDA and CDC recommendations. Twenty-seven patients underwent testing, which was performed at the convenience of the patients at no cost to them. One patient had evidence of previous (but not current) hepatitis B infection. Overall, patients were appreciative of the processes used. Media coverage was positive., Conclusion: The response plan was generally successful in achieving the established goals. Potential improvements were identified in several areas, including initial patient notification and coordination of test result communication. It is critical to allow flexibility to meet each patient's needs. The plan may serve as a template for use in future tissue recalls by other hospital-based tissue banks.

The quality of research in hospital epidemiology (infection control) must be improved to be robust enough to influence policy and practice. In order to raise the standards of research and publication, a CONSORT equivalent for these largely quasi-experimental studies has been prepared by the authors of two relevant systematic reviews, following consultation with learned societies, editors of journals and researchers. It consists of a 22 item checklist, and a summary table. The emphasis is on transparency to improve the quality of reporting and on the use of appropriate statistical techniques. The statement has been endorsed by a number of professional special interest groups and societies. Like CONSORT, ORION should be considered a 'work in progress', which requires ongoing dialogue for successful promotion and dissemination. The statement is therefore offered for further public discussion. Journals and research councils are strongly recommended to incorporate it into their submission and reviewing processes. Feedback to the authors is encouraged and the statement will be revised in 2 years.

The quality of research in hospital epidemiology (infection control) must be improved to be robust enough to influence policy and practice. In order to raise the standards of research and publication, a CONSORT equivalent for these largely quasi-experimental studies has been prepared by the authors of two relevant systematic reviews, following consultation with learned societies, editors of journals, and researchers. The ORION (Outbreak Reports and Intervention Studies Of Nosocomial infection) statement consists of a 22 item checklist, and a summary table. The emphasis is on transparency to improve the quality of reporting and on the use of appropriate statistical techniques. The statement has been endorsed by a number of professional special interest groups and societies. Like CONSORT, ORION should be considered a "work in progress", which requires ongoing dialogue for successful promotion and dissemination. The statement is therefore offered for further public discussion. Journals and research councils are strongly recommended to incorporate it into their submission and reviewing processes. Feedback to the authors is encouraged and the statement will be revised in 2 years.

Faced with expectations to improve patient safety and contain costs, the US health care system is under increasing pressure to comprehensively and objectively account for nosocomial infections. Widely accepted nosocomial infection surveillance methods, however, are limited in scope, not sensitive, and applied inconsistently. In 907 inpatient admissions to Evanston Northwestern Healthcare hospitals (Evanston, IL), nosocomial infection identification by the Nosocomial Infection Marker (MedMined, Birmingham, AL), an electronic, laboratory-based marker, was compared with hospital-wide nosocomial infection detection by medical records review and established nosocomial infection detection methods. The sensitivity and specificity of marker analysis were 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI 95], 0.76-0.96) and 0.984 (CI 95, 0.976, 0.992). Marker analysis also identified 11 intensive care unit-associated nosocomial infections (sensitivity, 1.0; specificity, 0.986). Nosocomial Infection Marker analysis had a comparable sensitivity (P > .3) to and lower specificity (P < .001) than medical records review. It is important to note that marker analysis statistically outperformed widely accepted surveillance methods, including hospital-wide detection by Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control chart review and intensive care unit detection by National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance techniques.

Since 2002, 4 states have enacted legislation that requires health care organizations to publicly disclose health care-associated infection (HAI) rates. Similar legislative efforts are underway in several other states. Advocates of mandatory public reporting of HAIs believe that making such information publicly available will enable consumers to make more informed choices about their health care and improve overall health care quality by reducing HAIs. Further, they believe that patients have a right to know this information. However, others have expressed concern that the reliability of public reporting systems may be compromised by institutional variability in the definitions used for HAIs, or in the methods and resources used to identify HAIs. Presently, there is insufficient evidence on the merits and limitations of an HAI public reporting system. Therefore, the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) has not recommended for or against mandatory public reporting of HAI rates. However, HICPAC has developed this guidance document based on established principles for public health and HAI reporting systems. This document is intended to assist policymakers, program planners, consumer advocacy organizations, and others tasked with designing and implementing public reporting systems for HAIs. The document provides a framework for legislators, but does not provide model legislation. HICPAC recommends that persons who design and implement such systems 1) use established public health surveillance methods when designing and implementing mandatory HAI reporting systems; 2) create multidisciplinary advisory panels, including persons with expertise in the prevention and control of HAIs, to monitor the planning and oversight of HAI public reporting systems; 3) choose appropriate process and outcome measures based on facility type and phase in measures to allow time for facilities to adapt and to permit ongoing evaluation of data validity; and 4) provide regular and confidential feedback of performance data to healthcare providers. Specifically, HICPAC recommends that states establishing public reporting systems for HAIs select one or more of the following process or outcome measures as appropriate for hospitals or long-term care facilities in their jurisdictions: 1) central-line insertion practices; 2) surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis; 3) influenza vaccination coverage among patients and healthcare personnel; 4) central line-associated bloodstream infections; and 5) surgical site infections following selected operations. HICPAC will update these recommendations as more research and experience become available.

Introduction: Since July 26, 2001, the external reporting to the regional office of health and social affairs (Direction départementale des affaires sanitaires et sociales--Ddass) and the coordination centre (Comité de lutte contre les infections nosocomiales--Cclin) for the fight against nosocomial infections (NI) is mandatory. However, the modalities of internal reporting to the Clin are unknown., Method: We performed a retrospective analysis of 108 cases of NI reported over 23 months in 4 medical-surgical departments (MSD) with 14 to 35 NI reported/MSD. The distribution of the bacteria responsible was compared with that of the local epidemiological state (chi2 test). A correlation analysis was performed between the number of NI reported in each MSD and the structural characteristics and activity index of these MSD (Spearmann's correlation test)., Results: The NI were predominantly infections related to a catheter (43), lower respiratory tract (25) and infection of the site of surgery (19). Ninety were documented biologically, among which 10 implied multi-resistant bacteria. Ninety-four NI were associated with the prescription of an antibiotic. Compared with the local epidemiological state, the NI reported generally implied multi-resistant bacteria (p=0.009). The other microbiological data had little implication. In each of the MSD, the number of cases reported was independent of: the global activity, the number of interventions, the mean duration of hospitalisation, the number of beds, the number of clinicians, the number of new patients managed and the chemotherapy outpatient activity. Conversely, there was a strong correlation between the global consumption of antibiotics (r=0.78), and the number of the Clin members in each MSD DMC (r=0.82)., Conclusion: In each MSD, the internal reporting of NI relies on the discovery of multi-resistant bacteria, but above all on the implication of those involved in the fight against nosocomial infections.

In 1997 the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America established a consensus panel to develop recommendations for optimal infrastructure and essential activities of infection control and epidemiology programs in out-of-hospital settings. The following report represents the Consensus Panel's best assessment of requirements for a healthy and effective out-of-hospital-based infection control and epidemiology program. The recommendations fall into 5 categories: managing critical data and information; developing and recommending policies and procedures; intervening directly to prevent infections; educating and training of health care workers, patients, and nonmedical caregivers; and resources. The Consensus Panel used an evidence-based approach and categorized recommendations according to modifications of the scheme developed by the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.