A Comparison Between National Healthcare Safety Network Laboratory-Identified Event Reporting versus Traditional Surveillance for Clostridium difficile Infection
A Comparison Between National Healthcare Safety Network Laboratory-Identified Event Reporting versus Traditional Surveillance for Clostridium difficile Infection
复制标题
DOI:
10.1017/ice.2014.42
复制
发表时间:
2015-02-01
影响因子:
4.5
通讯作者:
Moehring, Rebekah W.
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Durkin, Michael J.;Baker, Arthur W.;Moehring, Rebekah W.
OBJECTIVE Hospitals in the National Healthcare Safety Network began reporting laboratory-identified (LabID) Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) events in January 2013. Our study quantified the differences between the LabID and traditional surveillance methods.DESIGN Cohort study.SETTING A cohort of 29 community hospitals in the southeastern United States.METHODS A period of 6 months (January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2013) of prospectively collected data using both LabID and traditional surveillance definitions were analyzed. CDI events with mismatched surveillance categories between LabID and traditional definitions were identified and characterized further. Hospital-onset CDI (HO-CDI) rates for the entire cohort of hospitals were calculated using each method, then hospital-specific HO-CDI rates and standardized infection ratios (SIRs) were calculated. Hospital rankings based on each CDI surveillance measure were compared.RESULTS A total of 1,252 incident LabID CDI events were identified during 708,551 patient-days; 286 (23%) mismatched CDI events were detected. The overall HO-CDI rate was 6.0 vs 4.4 per 10,000 patient-days for LabID and traditional surveillance, respectively (P