OBJECTIVES: We report the results of a 4-month survey implemented at the urologic clinic of an Italian university hospital, with the following aims: (1) to describe the incidence of nosocomial infections (NI) in our setting for comparison within and between urologic wards and (2) to provide relevant information to monitor and target infection control policies. METHODS: A 4-month prospective survey was performed from April to July 2004, preceded by the 1-month surveillance pilot study; both performed in accordance with the methods, protocols and definitions of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. The following indicators were included site-specific incidence rates and device-adjusted infection rates. For surgical site infections, rates were calculated by operative procedure and risk index category. Antimicrobial usage was also monitored. RESULTS: Incidence of symptomatic urinary tract infections was 1.4 per 1000 patient-days, 1.3 per 100 catheterized patients and 3.0 per 1000 urinary catheter-days. Incidence and incidence density of surgical site infections were respectively 1.3 per 100 patients and 1.8 per 1000 patient-days. CONCLUSIONS: Our study represents a contribution to improve the quality of care in our urologic ward by monitoring the size of the NI problem using standardized definitions, data collection and indicators to compare the results of the unit with possible future ones, and by identifying practices that should be changed. This study supports close surveillance of antibiotic administration among urologists who may be unaware of the inappropriate antibiotic administration in their patients. Two major items were identified for planning future intervention: focusing on the use of closed urinary drainage systems and on appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVES: We report the results of a 4-month survey implemented at the urologic clinic of an Italian university hospital, with the following aims: (1) to describe the incidence of nosocomial infections (NI) in our setting for comparison within and between urologic wards and (2) to provide relevant information to monitor and target infection control policies. METHODS: A 4-month prospective survey was performed from April to July 2004, preceded by the 1-month surveillance pilot study; both performed in accordance with the methods, protocols and definitions of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. The following indicators were included site-specific incidence rates and device-adjusted infection rates. For surgical site infections, rates were calculated by operative procedure and risk index category. Antimicrobial usage was also monitored. RESULTS: Incidence of symptomatic urinary tract infections was 1.4 per 1000 patient-days, 1.3 per 100 catheterized patients and 3.0 per 1000 urinary catheter-days. Incidence and incidence density of surgical site infections were respectively 1.3 per 100 patients and 1.8 per 1000 patient-days. CONCLUSIONS: Our study represents a contribution to improve the quality of care in our urologic ward by monitoring the size of the NI problem using standardized definitions, data collection and indicators to compare the results of the unit with possible future ones, and by identifying practices that should be changed. This study supports close surveillance of antibiotic administration among urologists who may be unaware of the inappropriate antibiotic administration in their patients. Two major items were identified for planning future intervention: focusing on the use of closed urinary drainage systems and on appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis.