OBJECTIVE: Surveillance of nosocomial bloodstream infection (BSI) is recommended, but time-consuming. We explored strategies for automated surveillance. METHODS: Cohort study. We prospectively processed microbiological and administrative patient data with computerized algorithms to identify contaminated blood cultures, community-acquired BSI, and hospital-acquired BSI and used algorithms to classify the latter on the basis of whether it was a catheter-associated infection. We compared the automatic classification with an assessment (71% prospective) of clinical data. SETTING: An 850-bed university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients admitted to general surgery, internal medicine, a medical intensive care unit, or a surgical intensive care unit over 3 years. RESULTS: The results of the automated surveillance were 95% concordant with those of classical surveillance based on the assessment of clinical data in distinguishing contamination, community-acquired BSI, and hospital-acquired BSI in a random sample of 100 cases of bacteremia. The two methods were 74% concordant in classifying 351 consecutive episodes of nosocomial BSI with respect to whether the BSI was catheter-associated. Prolonged episodes of BSI, mostly fungemia, that were counted multiple times and incorrect classification of BSI clinically imputable to catheter infection accounted for 81% of the misclassifications in automated surveillance. By counting episodes of fungemia only once per hospital stay and by considering all cases of coagulase-negative staphylococcal BSI to be catheter-related, we improved concordance with clinical assessment to 82%. With these adjustments, automated surveillance for detection of catheter-related BSI had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 93%; for detection of other types of nosocomial BSI, the sensitivity was 98% and the specificity was 69%. CONCLUSION: Automated strategies are convenient alternatives to manual surveillance of nosocomial BSI.
OBJECTIVE: Surveillance of nosocomial bloodstream infection (BSI) is recommended, but time-consuming. We explored strategies for automated surveillance. METHODS: Cohort study. We prospectively processed microbiological and administrative patient data with computerized algorithms to identify contaminated blood cultures, community-acquired BSI, and hospital-acquired BSI and used algorithms to classify the latter on the basis of whether it was a catheter-associated infection. We compared the automatic classification with an assessment (71% prospective) of clinical data. SETTING: An 850-bed university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients admitted to general surgery, internal medicine, a medical intensive care unit, or a surgical intensive care unit over 3 years. RESULTS: The results of the automated surveillance were 95% concordant with those of classical surveillance based on the assessment of clinical data in distinguishing contamination, community-acquired BSI, and hospital-acquired BSI in a random sample of 100 cases of bacteremia. The two methods were 74% concordant in classifying 351 consecutive episodes of nosocomial BSI with respect to whether the BSI was catheter-associated. Prolonged episodes of BSI, mostly fungemia, that were counted multiple times and incorrect classification of BSI clinically imputable to catheter infection accounted for 81% of the misclassifications in automated surveillance. By counting episodes of fungemia only once per hospital stay and by considering all cases of coagulase-negative staphylococcal BSI to be catheter-related, we improved concordance with clinical assessment to 82%. With these adjustments, automated surveillance for detection of catheter-related BSI had a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 93%; for detection of other types of nosocomial BSI, the sensitivity was 98% and the specificity was 69%. CONCLUSION: Automated strategies are convenient alternatives to manual surveillance of nosocomial BSI.
Authors: Bala Hota; Michael Lin; Joshua A Doherty; Tara Borlawsky; Keith Woeltje; Kurt Stevenson; Yosef Khan; Jeremy Young; Robert A Weinstein; William Trick Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Bevin Cohen; Sarah A Clock; Elaine Larson; Maryam Behta; Barbara Ross; Reonel Saddul; David K Vawdrey Journal: J Nurs Care Qual Date: 2011 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 1.597
Authors: Keith F Woeltje; Anne M Butler; Ashleigh J Goris; Nhial T Tutlam; Joshua A Doherty; M Brandon Westover; Vicky Ferris; Thomas C Bailey Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Kim O Gradel; Jenny Dahl Knudsen; Magnus Arpi; Christian Ostergaard; Henrik C Schønheyder; Mette Søgaard Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Maaike S M van Mourik; Rolf H H Groenwold; Jan Willem Berkelbach van der Sprenkel; Wouter W van Solinge; Annet Troelstra; Marc J M Bonten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 3.240