OBJECTIVE: The ventilator bundle is being promoted to prevent adverse events in ventilated patients including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). We aimed to: (i) examine adoption of the ventilator bundle elements; (ii) determine effectiveness of individual elements and setting characteristics in reducing VAP; (iii) determine effectiveness of two infection-specific elements on reducing VAP; and, (iv) assess crossover effects of complying with VAP elements on central line-associated bloodstream infections. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Four hundred and fifteen ICUs from 250 US hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Managers/directors of infection prevention and control departments. INTERVENTIONS: Adoption and compliance with ventilator bundle elements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VAP rates. RESULTS: The mean VAP rate was 2.7/1000 ventilator days. Two-thirds (n = 284) reported presence of the full ventilator bundle policy. However, only 66% (n = 188/284) monitored implementation; of those, 39% (n = 73/188) reported high compliance. Only when an intensive care unit (ICU) had a policy, monitored compliance and achieved high compliance were VAP rates lower. Compliance with individual elements or just one of two infection-related element had no impact on VAP (β = -0.79, P= 0.15). There was an association between complying with two infection elements and lower rates (β = -1.81, P< 0.01). There were no crossover effects. Presence of a full-time hospital epidemiologist (HE) was significantly associated with lower VAP rates (β = -3.62, P< 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The ventilator bundle was frequently present but not well implemented. Individual elements did not appear effective; strict compliance with infection elements was needed. Efforts to prevent VAP may be successful in settings of high levels of compliance with all infection-specific elements and in settings with full-time HEs.
OBJECTIVE: The ventilator bundle is being promoted to prevent adverse events in ventilated patients including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). We aimed to: (i) examine adoption of the ventilator bundle elements; (ii) determine effectiveness of individual elements and setting characteristics in reducing VAP; (iii) determine effectiveness of two infection-specific elements on reducing VAP; and, (iv) assess crossover effects of complying with VAP elements on central line-associated bloodstream infections. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Four hundred and fifteen ICUs from 250 US hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Managers/directors of infection prevention and control departments. INTERVENTIONS: Adoption and compliance with ventilator bundle elements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VAP rates. RESULTS: The mean VAP rate was 2.7/1000 ventilator days. Two-thirds (n = 284) reported presence of the full ventilator bundle policy. However, only 66% (n = 188/284) monitored implementation; of those, 39% (n = 73/188) reported high compliance. Only when an intensive care unit (ICU) had a policy, monitored compliance and achieved high compliance were VAP rates lower. Compliance with individual elements or just one of two infection-related element had no impact on VAP (β = -0.79, P= 0.15). There was an association between complying with two infection elements and lower rates (β = -1.81, P< 0.01). There were no crossover effects. Presence of a full-time hospital epidemiologist (HE) was significantly associated with lower VAP rates (β = -3.62, P< 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The ventilator bundle was frequently present but not well implemented. Individual elements did not appear effective; strict compliance with infection elements was needed. Efforts to prevent VAP may be successful in settings of high levels of compliance with all infection-specific elements and in settings with full-time HEs.
Authors: T G Emori; J R Edwards; D H Culver; C Sartor; L A Stroud; E E Gaunt; T C Horan; R P Gaynes Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: G Prod'hom; P Leuenberger; J Koerfer; A Blum; R Chiolero; M D Schaller; C Perret; O Spinnler; J Blondel; H Siegrist; L Saghafi; D Blanc; P Francioli Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1994-04-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: E Yoko Furuya; Andrew Dick; Eli N Perencevich; Monika Pogorzelska; Donald Goldmann; Patricia W Stone Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew W Dick; Eli N Perencevich; Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; Jack Zwanziger; Elaine L Larson; Patricia W Stone Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; Ingrid M Nembhard; Rebecca Schnall; Shanelle Nelson; Patricia W Stone Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Laurie J Conway; Victoria H Raveis; Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; May Uchida; Patricia W Stone; Elaine L Larson Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2013-07-20 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Patricia W Stone; Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; Carolyn T A Herzig; Lindsey M Weiner; E Yoko Furuya; Andrew Dick; Elaine Larson Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Jennifer L Bailit; William A Grobman; Paula McGee; Uma M Reddy; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Kenneth J Leveno; Jay D Iams; Alan T N Tita; George Saade; Yoram Sorokin; Dwight J Rouse; Sean C Blackwell Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Victoria H Raveis; Laurie J Conway; Mayuko Uchida; Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; Elaine L Larson; Patricia W Stone Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2014-03-05