Literature DB >> 21757384

The accuracy and validity of a weekly point-prevalence survey for evaluating the trend of hospital-acquired infections in a university hospital in Turkey.

Cemal Ustun1, Salih Hosoglu, Mehmet Faruk Geyik, Zafer Parlak, Celal Ayaz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of a weekly point-prevalence survey (WPS) by comparing it with a prospective-active incidence survey (PIS).
METHODS: WPS and PIS were conducted at a tertiary referral hospital between January and December 2006. Each Wednesday, an infection control team reviewed all clinical records of patients with hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) by WPS. Routine PIS was conducted with daily visits by the same team. The Rhame and Sudderth formula was used for converting the data between WPS and PIS.
RESULTS: During the study period, 1287 HAIs were detected in 37 466 patients by WPS. The mean observed prevalence and calculated prevalence were 5.42% and 5.45%, respectively. The reanimation intensive care unit (ICU) (49.4%) and burns unit (27.6%) had the highest prevalence rates. Pneumonia (0.94%) and urinary tract infections (0.37%) were the most frequent infections. Overall 602 HAIs were detected in 545 patients by PIS. The mean observed incidence and calculated incidence were 2.42/1000-admissions and 2.41/1000-admissions, respectively. The Critical care ICU (37.0/1000-admissions) and burns unit (24.8/1000-admissions) had the highest incidences of HAI. Pneumonia (0.64/1000-admissions) and urinary tract infections (0.37/1000-admissions) were the most frequent infections.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms a close relationship between prevalence and incidence data. WPS may be a useful method for following HAIs when PIS cannot be performed.
Copyright © 2011 International Society for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21757384     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2011.05.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Infect Dis        ISSN: 1201-9712            Impact factor:   3.623


  6 in total

1.  The prevalence of nosocomial and community acquired infections in a university hospital: an observational study.

Authors:  Ella Ott; Svenja Saathoff; Karolin Graf; Frank Schwab; Iris F Chaberny
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2013-08-05       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Point prevalence of hospital-acquired infections in two teaching hospitals of Amhara region in Ethiopia.

Authors:  Walelegn Worku Yallew; Abera Kumie; Feleke Moges Yehuala
Journal:  Drug Healthc Patient Saf       Date:  2016-08-23

3.  Incidence of surgical site infections cannot be derived reliably from point prevalence survey data in Dutch hospitals.

Authors:  A P Meijs; J A Ferreira; S C DE Greeff; M C Vos; M B G Koek
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 2.451

4.  Computer-assisted, high-frequency, hospital-wide point prevalence surveys of hospital-acquired infections in a tertiary care hospital, the Netherlands, 2013 to 2014.

Authors:  H Roel A Streefkerk; Sten P Willemsen; Conrad P van der Hoeven; Margreet C Vos; Roel Paj Verkooijen; Henri A Verbrugh
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2019-03

5.  Antibiotic use among hospitalized patients in northern Nigeria: a multicenter point-prevalence survey.

Authors:  Usman Abubakar
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 3.090

6.  Point-prevalence survey of hospital acquired infections in three acute care hospitals in Northern Nigeria.

Authors:  Usman Abubakar
Journal:  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 4.887

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.