Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:04:31.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Improving the Central Line—Associated Bloodstream Infection Surveillance Definition: A Work in Progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

James P. Steinberg*
Affiliation:
Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta, Georgia
Susan E. Coffin
Affiliation:
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
*
Emory University Hospital Midtown, Medical Office Tower, 5th Floor, 550 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30308 ([email protected])

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Rhame, FS. Surveillance objectives: descriptive epidemiology. Infect Control 1987;8:454458.Google Scholar
2.Fraser, TG, Gordon, SM. CLABSI rates in immunocompromised patients: a valuable patient centered outcome? Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(12):14461450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Sexton, DJ, Chen, LF, Anderson, DJ. Current definitions of central line-associated bloodstream infection: is the emperor wearing clothes? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(12):12861289.Google Scholar
4.See, I, Iwamoto, M, Allen-Bridson, K, Horan, T, Magill, SS, Thompson, ND. Mucosal barrier injury laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection: results from a field test of a new National Healthcare Safety Network definition. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(8):769776 (in this issue).Google Scholar
5.Steinberg, JP, Robichaux, C, Tejedor, SC, Reyes, MD, Jacob, JT. Distribution of pathogens in central line-associated bloodstream infections among patients with and without neutropenia following chemotherapy: evidence for a proposed modification to the current surveillance definition. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(2):171175.Google Scholar
6.Srinivasan, A, Wise, M, Bell, M, et al.Vital signs: central line–associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:243248.Google Scholar
7.Gaur, AH, Bundy, DG, Gao, C, et al.Surveillance of hospital-acquired central line-associated bloodstream infections in pediatric hematology-oncology patients: lessons learned, challenges ahead. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(3):316320.Google Scholar
8.Rettig, SL, Gross, KA, Ditaranto, S, et al.Central line-associated bloodstream infections in oncology patients: the impact of mucositis on CLABSI rates. Presented at: 20th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; Dallas, TX; April 1-4, 2011.Google Scholar
9.Mayer, J, Greene, T, Howell, J, et al.Agreement in classifying bloodstream infections among multiple reviewers conducting surveillance. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:364370.Google Scholar
10.Lin, MY, Hota, B, Khan, YM, et al.Quality of traditional surveillance for public reporting of nosocomial bloodstream infection rates. JAMA 2010;304:20352041.Google Scholar
11.Aslakson, RA, Romig, M, Galvagno, SM, et al.Effect of accounting for multiple concurrent catheters on central line-associated bloodstream infection rates: practical data supporting a theoretical concern. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:121124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Sexton, DJ, Chen, LF, Moehring, R, Thacker, PA, Anderson, DJ. Casablanca redux: we are shocked that public reporting of rates of central line-associated bloodstream infections are inaccurate. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:932935.Google Scholar