BACKGROUND: Following the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003, hospitals have been mandated to use infection screening questionnaires to determine which patients have infectious respiratory illness and, therefore, require isolation precautions. Despite widespread use of symptom-based screening tools in Ontario, there are no data supporting the accuracy of these screening tools in hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: To measure the performance characteristics of infection screening tools used during the H1N1 influenza season. METHODS: The present retrospective cohort study was conducted at The Ottawa Hospital (Ottawa, Ontario) between October and December, 2009. Consecutive inpatients admitted from the emergency department were included if they were ≥18 years of age, underwent a screening tool assessment at presentation and had a most responsible diagnosis that was cardiac, respiratory or infectious. The gold-standard outcome was laboratory diagnosis of influenza. RESULTS: The prevalence of laboratory-confirmed influenza was 23.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the febrile respiratory illness screening tool were 74.5% (95% CI 60.5% to 84.8%) and 32.7% (95% CI 25.8% to 40.5%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the influenza-like illness screening tool were 75.6% (95% CI 61.3% to 85.8%) and 46.3% (95% CI 38.2% to 54.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The febrile respiratory illness screening tool missed 26% of active influenza cases, while 67% of noninfluenza patients were unnecessarily placed under respiratory isolation. Results of the present study suggest that infection-control practitioners should re-evaluate their strategy of screening patients at admission for contagious respiratory illness using symptom- and sign-based tests. Future efforts should focus on the derivation and validation of clinical decision rules that combine clinical features with laboratory tests.
BACKGROUND: Following the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003, hospitals have been mandated to use infection screening questionnaires to determine which patients have infectious respiratory illness and, therefore, require isolation precautions. Despite widespread use of symptom-based screening tools in Ontario, there are no data supporting the accuracy of these screening tools in hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: To measure the performance characteristics of infection screening tools used during the H1N1 influenza season. METHODS: The present retrospective cohort study was conducted at The Ottawa Hospital (Ottawa, Ontario) between October and December, 2009. Consecutive inpatients admitted from the emergency department were included if they were ≥18 years of age, underwent a screening tool assessment at presentation and had a most responsible diagnosis that was cardiac, respiratory or infectious. The gold-standard outcome was laboratory diagnosis of influenza. RESULTS: The prevalence of laboratory-confirmed influenza was 23.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the febrile respiratory illness screening tool were 74.5% (95% CI 60.5% to 84.8%) and 32.7% (95% CI 25.8% to 40.5%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the influenza-like illness screening tool were 75.6% (95% CI 61.3% to 85.8%) and 46.3% (95% CI 38.2% to 54.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The febrile respiratory illness screening tool missed 26% of active influenza cases, while 67% of noninfluenza patients were unnecessarily placed under respiratory isolation. Results of the present study suggest that infection-control practitioners should re-evaluate their strategy of screening patients at admission for contagious respiratory illness using symptom- and sign-based tests. Future efforts should focus on the derivation and validation of clinical decision rules that combine clinical features with laboratory tests.
Authors: Todd F Hatchette; Nathalie Bastien; Jody Berry; Tim F Booth; Max Chernesky; Michel Couillard; Steven Drews; Anthony Ebsworth; Margaret Fearon; Kevin Fonseca; Julie Fox; Jean-Nicolas Gagnon; Steven Guercio; Greg Horsman; Cathy Jorowski; Theodore Kuschak; Yan Li; Anna Majury; Martin Petric; Sam Ratnam; Marek Smieja; Paul Van Caeseele Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2009 May-Jun
Authors: Pauline M Lucas; Oliver W Morgan; Thomas F Gibbons; Alicia C Guerrero; Genny M Maupin; Jenny L Butler; Linda C Canas; Vincent P Fonseca; Sonja J Olsen; Victor H MacIntosh Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-01-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Deena E Sutter; Sue A Worthy; Donna M Hensley; Ashley M Maranich; Donna M Dolan; Gerald W Fischer; Luke T Daum Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.327
Authors: C van den Dool; E Hak; J Wallinga; A M van Loon; J W J Lammers; M J M Bonten Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Thomas Bewick; Puja Myles; Sonia Greenwood; Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam; Stephen J Brett; Malcolm G Semple; Peter J Openshaw; Barbara Bannister; Robert C Read; Bruce L Taylor; Jim McMenamin; Joanne E Enstone; Karl G Nicholson; Wei Shen Lim Journal: Thorax Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Marc R Miller; Timothy R Peters; Cynthia K Suerken; Beverly M Snively; Katherine A Poehling Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: D M Fleming; R J Taylor; F Haguinet; C Schuck-Paim; J Logie; D J Webb; R L Lustig; G Matias Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 2.451