Jessica I Abrantes-Figueiredo1, Jack W Ross1,2, David B Banach3. 1. University of Connecticut School of Medicine, 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT, USA. 2. Hartford Healthcare, 80 Seymour Street, Hartford, CT, 06030, USA. 3. University of Connecticut School of Medicine, 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT, USA. dbanach@uchc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to describe the role of device utilization as a component of surveillance for healthcare-associated infections and describe its potential role as a measurement of healthcare quality. RECENT FINDINGS: Device utilization, while primarily a process-based measure in the prevention of device-associated infections can also serve as an important outcome in the evaluation of an infection prevention program. Device utilization can be an important and resource-efficient measurement when coupled with measurements of risk-adjusted infection rates. The measurement of the device utilization ratio can provide insight into the risk of device-associated harms, including non-infectious harms, which would not be captured with currently used infection-based surveillance metrics. Further study and validation of standardized, risk-adjusted device utilization measurements is an important area for future exploration.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to describe the role of device utilization as a component of surveillance for healthcare-associated infections and describe its potential role as a measurement of healthcare quality. RECENT FINDINGS: Device utilization, while primarily a process-based measure in the prevention of device-associated infections can also serve as an important outcome in the evaluation of an infection prevention program. Device utilization can be an important and resource-efficient measurement when coupled with measurements of risk-adjusted infection rates. The measurement of the device utilization ratio can provide insight into the risk of device-associated harms, including non-infectious harms, which would not be captured with currently used infection-based surveillance metrics. Further study and validation of standardized, risk-adjusted device utilization measurements is an important area for future exploration.
Authors: Carolyn V Gould; Craig A Umscheid; Rajender K Agarwal; Gretchen Kuntz; David A Pegues Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Evelyn Lo; Lindsay E Nicolle; Susan E Coffin; Carolyn Gould; Lisa L Maragakis; Jennifer Meddings; David A Pegues; Ann Marie Pettis; Sanjay Saint; Deborah S Yokoe Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Anne-Marie Leuck; Deborah Wright; Leann Ellingson; Linda Kraemer; Michael A Kuskowski; James R Johnson Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marc-Oliver Wright; Maureen Kharasch; Jennifer L Beaumont; Lance R Peterson; Ari Robicsek Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Megan K Shaughnessy; William H Amundson; Michael A Kuskowski; Douglas D DeCarolis; James R Johnson; Dimitri M Drekonja Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Margaret A Dudeck; Lindsey M Weiner; Katherine Allen-Bridson; Paul J Malpiedi; Kelly D Peterson; Daniel A Pollock; Dawn M Sievert; Jonathan R Edwards Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Shelley S Magill; Jonathan R Edwards; Wendy Bamberg; Zintars G Beldavs; Ghinwa Dumyati; Marion A Kainer; Ruth Lynfield; Meghan Maloney; Laura McAllister-Hollod; Joelle Nadle; Susan M Ray; Deborah L Thompson; Lucy E Wilson; Scott K Fridkin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 91.245