OBJECTIVE: To evaluate two different methods of measuring catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) rates in the setting of a quality improvement initiative aimed at reducing device utilization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Comparison of CAUTI measurements in the context of a before-after trial of acute care adult admissions to a multicentered healthcare system. METHODS: CAUTIs were identified with an automated surveillance system, and device-days were measured through an electronic health record. Traditional surveillance measures of CAUTI rates per 1,000 device-days (R1) were compared with CAUTI rates per 10,000 patient-days (R2) before (T1) and after (T2) an intervention aimed at reducing catheter utilization. RESULTS: The device-utilization ratio declined from 0.36 to 0.28 between T1 and T2 (P = .001), while infection rates were significantly lower when measured by R2 (28.2 vs 23.2, P = .02). When measured by R1, however, infection rates trended upward by 6% (7.79 vs. 8.28, P = .47), and at the nursing unit level, reduction in device utilization was significantly associated with increases in infection rate. CONCLUSIONS: The widely accepted practice of using device-days as a method of risk adjustment to calculate device-associated infection rates may mask the impact of a successful quality improvement program and reward programs not actively engaged in reducing device usage.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate two different methods of measuring catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) rates in the setting of a quality improvement initiative aimed at reducing device utilization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Comparison of CAUTI measurements in the context of a before-after trial of acute care adult admissions to a multicentered healthcare system. METHODS: CAUTIs were identified with an automated surveillance system, and device-days were measured through an electronic health record. Traditional surveillance measures of CAUTI rates per 1,000 device-days (R1) were compared with CAUTI rates per 10,000 patient-days (R2) before (T1) and after (T2) an intervention aimed at reducing catheter utilization. RESULTS: The device-utilization ratio declined from 0.36 to 0.28 between T1 and T2 (P = .001), while infection rates were significantly lower when measured by R2 (28.2 vs 23.2, P = .02). When measured by R1, however, infection rates trended upward by 6% (7.79 vs. 8.28, P = .47), and at the nursing unit level, reduction in device utilization was significantly associated with increases in infection rate. CONCLUSIONS: The widely accepted practice of using device-days as a method of risk adjustment to calculate device-associated infection rates may mask the impact of a successful quality improvement program and reward programs not actively engaged in reducing device usage.
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: Charles A Baillie; Mika Epps; Asaf Hanish; Neil O Fishman; Benjamin French; Craig A Umscheid Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Ryan P Fagan; Jonathan R Edwards; Benjamin J Park; Scott K Fridkin; Shelley S Magill Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Sarah S Lewis; Lauren P Knelson; Rebekah W Moehring; Luke F Chen; Daniel J Sexton; Deverick J Anderson Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Michael Klompas; Deverick Anderson; William Trick; Hilary Babcock; Meeta Prasad Kerlin; Lingling Li; Ronda Sinkowitz-Cochran; E Wesley Ely; John Jernigan; Shelley Magill; Rosie Lyles; Caroline O'Neil; Barrett T Kitch; Ellen Arrington; Michele C Balas; Ken Kleinman; Christina Bruce; Julie Lankiewicz; Michael V Murphy; Christopher E Cox; Ebbing Lautenbach; Daniel Sexton; Victoria Fraser; Robert A Weinstein; Richard Platt Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-02-01 Impact factor: 30.528