BACKGROUND: Considerable hospital resources are dedicated to minimizing the number of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. One tool that is commonly used to achieve this goal is surveillance for MRSA colonization. This process is costly, and false-positive test results lead to isolation of individuals who do not carry MRSA. The performance of this technique would improve if patients who are at high risk of colonization could be readily targeted. METHODS: Five MRSA colonization prediction rules of varying complexity were derived in a population of 23,314 patients who were consecutively admitted to a US hospital and tested for colonization. Rules incorporated only prospectively collected, structured electronic data found in a patient's record within 1 day of hospital admission. These rules were tested in a validation cohort of 26,650 patients who were admitted to 2 other hospitals. RESULTS: The prevalence of MRSA at hospital admission was 2.2% and 4.0% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Multivariable modeling identified predictors of MRSA colonization among demographic, admission-related, pharmacologic, laboratory, physiologic, and historical variables. Five prediction rules varied in their performance, but each could be used to identify the 30% of patients who accounted for greater than 60% of all cases of MRSA colonization and approximately 70% of all MRSA-associated patient-days. Most rules could also identify the 20% of patients with a greater than 8% chance of colonization and the 40% of patients among whom colonization prevalence was 2% or less. CONCLUSIONS: We report electronic prediction rules that can fully automate triage of patients for MRSA-related hospital admission testing and that offer significant improvements on previously reported rules. The efficiencies introduced may result in savings to infection control programs with little sacrifice in effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Considerable hospital resources are dedicated to minimizing the number of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. One tool that is commonly used to achieve this goal is surveillance for MRSA colonization. This process is costly, and false-positive test results lead to isolation of individuals who do not carry MRSA. The performance of this technique would improve if patients who are at high risk of colonization could be readily targeted. METHODS: Five MRSA colonization prediction rules of varying complexity were derived in a population of 23,314 patients who were consecutively admitted to a US hospital and tested for colonization. Rules incorporated only prospectively collected, structured electronic data found in a patient's record within 1 day of hospital admission. These rules were tested in a validation cohort of 26,650 patients who were admitted to 2 other hospitals. RESULTS: The prevalence of MRSA at hospital admission was 2.2% and 4.0% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Multivariable modeling identified predictors of MRSA colonization among demographic, admission-related, pharmacologic, laboratory, physiologic, and historical variables. Five prediction rules varied in their performance, but each could be used to identify the 30% of patients who accounted for greater than 60% of all cases of MRSA colonization and approximately 70% of all MRSA-associated patient-days. Most rules could also identify the 20% of patients with a greater than 8% chance of colonization and the 40% of patients among whom colonization prevalence was 2% or less. CONCLUSIONS: We report electronic prediction rules that can fully automate triage of patients for MRSA-related hospital admission testing and that offer significant improvements on previously reported rules. The efficiencies introduced may result in savings to infection control programs with little sacrifice in effectiveness.
Authors: James A McKinnell; Loren G Miller; Samantha J Eells; Eric Cui; Susan S Huang Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Benjamin A Goldstein; Ann Marie Navar; Michael J Pencina; John P A Ioannidis Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Marianne S Muhlebach; Sonya L Heltshe; Elena B Popowitch; Melissa B Miller; Valeria Thompson; Margaret Kloster; Thomas Ferkol; Wynton C Hoover; Michael S Schechter; Lisa Saiman Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2015-06
Authors: Bruce Brockstein; Thomas Hensing; George W Carro; Jennifer Obel; Janardan Khandekar; Lynne Kaminer; Christine Van De Wege; Robert de Wilton Marsh Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Lance R Peterson; Marc O Wright; Jennifer L Beaumont; Vanida Komutanon; Parul A Patel; Donna M Schora; Bryan H Schmitt; Ari Robicsek Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Veronika Tchesnokova; Mariya Billig; Sujay Chattopadhyay; Elena Linardopoulou; Pavel Aprikian; Pacita L Roberts; Veronika Skrivankova; Brian Johnston; Alena Gileva; Irina Igusheva; Angus Toland; Kim Riddell; Peggy Rogers; Xuan Qin; Susan Butler-Wu; Brad T Cookson; Ferric C Fang; Barbara Kahl; Lance B Price; Scott J Weissman; Ajit Limaye; Delia Scholes; James R Johnson; Evgeni V Sokurenko Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Kalpana Gupta; Richard A Martinello; Melissa Young; Judith Strymish; Kelly Cho; Elizabeth Lawler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 3.240