Michael Klompas1, Ken Kleinman, Richard Platt. 1. Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. mklompas@partners.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Surveillance for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) using standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria is labor intensive and involves many subjective assessments. We sought to improve the efficiency and objectivity of VAP surveillance by adapting the CDC criteria to make them amenable to evaluation with electronic data. DESIGN: Prospective comparison of the accuracy of VAP surveillance by use of an algorithm with responses to prospective queries made to intensive care physicians. CDC criteria for VAP were used as a reference standard to evaluate the algorithm and clinicians' reports. SETTING: Three surgical intensive care units and 2 medical intensive care units at an academic hospital. METHODS: A total of 459 consecutive patients who received mechanical ventilation for a total of 2,540 days underwent surveillance by both methods during consecutive 3-month periods. Electronic surveillance criteria were chosen to mirror the CDC definition. Quantitative thresholds were substituted for qualitative criteria. Purely subjective criteria were eliminated. Increases in ventilator-control settings were taken to indicate worsening oxygenation. Semiquantitative Gram stain of pulmonary secretion samples was used to assess whether there was sputum purulence. RESULTS: The algorithm applied to electronic data detected 20 patients with possible VAP. All cases of VAP were confirmed in accordance with standard CDC criteria (100% positive predictive value). Prospective survey of clinicians detected 33 patients with possible VAP. Seventeen of the 33 possible cases were confirmed (52% positive predictive value). Overall, 21 cases of confirmed VAP were identified by either method. The algorithm identified 20 (95%) of 21 known cases, whereas the survey of clinicians identified 17 (81%) of 21 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance for VAP using electronic data is feasible and has high positive predictive value for cases that meet CDC criteria. Further validation of this method is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Surveillance for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) using standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria is labor intensive and involves many subjective assessments. We sought to improve the efficiency and objectivity of VAP surveillance by adapting the CDC criteria to make them amenable to evaluation with electronic data. DESIGN: Prospective comparison of the accuracy of VAP surveillance by use of an algorithm with responses to prospective queries made to intensive care physicians. CDC criteria for VAP were used as a reference standard to evaluate the algorithm and clinicians' reports. SETTING: Three surgical intensive care units and 2 medical intensive care units at an academic hospital. METHODS: A total of 459 consecutive patients who received mechanical ventilation for a total of 2,540 days underwent surveillance by both methods during consecutive 3-month periods. Electronic surveillance criteria were chosen to mirror the CDC definition. Quantitative thresholds were substituted for qualitative criteria. Purely subjective criteria were eliminated. Increases in ventilator-control settings were taken to indicate worsening oxygenation. Semiquantitative Gram stain of pulmonary secretion samples was used to assess whether there was sputum purulence. RESULTS: The algorithm applied to electronic data detected 20 patients with possible VAP. All cases of VAP were confirmed in accordance with standard CDC criteria (100% positive predictive value). Prospective survey of clinicians detected 33 patients with possible VAP. Seventeen of the 33 possible cases were confirmed (52% positive predictive value). Overall, 21 cases of confirmed VAP were identified by either method. The algorithm identified 20 (95%) of 21 known cases, whereas the survey of clinicians identified 17 (81%) of 21 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance for VAP using electronic data is feasible and has high positive predictive value for cases that meet CDC criteria. Further validation of this method is warranted.
Authors: Erik R Dubberke; Humaa A Nyazee; Deborah S Yokoe; Jeanmarie Mayer; Kurt B Stevenson; Julie E Mangino; Yosef M Khan; Victoria J Fraser Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Heather E Hsu; Erica S Shenoy; Douglas Kelbaugh; Winston Ware; Hang Lee; Pearl Zakroysky; David C Hooper; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: John C O'Horo; Rahul Kashyap; Ronaldo Sevilla Berrios; Vitaly Herasevich; Priya Sampathkumar Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Helen C Azzam; Satjeet S Khalsa; Richard Urbani; Chirag V Shah; Jason D Christie; Paul N Lanken; Barry D Fuchs Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Nasia Safdar; Deverick J Anderson; Barbara I Braun; Philip Carling; Stuart Cohen; Curtis Donskey; Marci Drees; Anthony Harris; David K Henderson; Susan S Huang; Manisha Juthani-Mehta; Ebbing Lautenbach; Darren R Linkin; Jennifer Meddings; Loren G Miller; Aaron Milstone; Daniel Morgan; Sharmila Sengupta; Meera Varman; Deborah Yokoe; Danielle M Zerr Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Basem Al-Omari; Peter McMeekin; A Joy Allen; Ahsan R Akram; Sara Graziadio; Jana Suklan; William S Jones; B Clare Lendrem; Amanda Winter; Milo Cullinan; Joanne Gray; Kevin Dhaliwal; Timothy S Walsh; Thomas H Craven Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 3.317