Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:15:45.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Administrative Data Fail to Accurately Identify Cases of Healthcare-Associated Infection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Eileen R. Sherman ,
Kateri H. Heydon ,
Keith H. St. John ,
Eva Teszner ,
Susan L. Rettig ,
Sharon K. Alexander ,
Theoklis Z. Zaoutis  and
Susan E. Coffin
Eileen R. Sherman
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia
Kateri H. Heydon
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia
Keith H. St. John
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia
Eva Teszner
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia
Susan L. Rettig
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia
Sharon K. Alexander
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia
Theoklis Z. Zaoutis
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia
Susan E. Coffin*
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia
*
Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Some policy makers have embraced public reporting of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) as a strategy for improving patient safety and reducing healthcare costs. We compared the accuracy of 2 methods of identifying cases of HAI: review of administrative data and targeted active surveillance.

Design, Setting, and Participants.

A cross-sectional prospective study was performed during a 9-month period in 2004 at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, a 418-bed academic pediatric hospital. “True HAI” cases were defined as those that met the definitions of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System and that were detected by a trained infection control professional on review of the medical record. We examined the sensitivity and the positive and negative predictive values of identifying HAI cases by review of administrative data and by targeted active surveillance.

Results.

We found similar sensitivities for identification of HAI cases by review of administrative data (61%) and by targeted active surveillance (76%). However, the positive predictive value of identifying HAI cases by review of administrative data was poor (20%), whereas that of targeted active surveillance was 100%.

Conclusions.

The positive predictive value of identifying HAI cases by targeted active surveillance is very high. Additional investigation is needed to define the optimal detection method for institutions that provide HAI data for comparative analysis.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , April 2006 , pp. 332 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

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.McCaughey, B. Coming clean. New York Times. June 6, 2005, 2005;A.Google Scholar
2.Consumers Union. Stop hospital infections. Available at: http://www.stophospitalinfections.org. Accessed August 6, 2005.Google Scholar
3.McKibben, L, Horan, T, Tokars, J, et al. Guidance on public reporting of healthcare-associated infections: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 2005; 33:217–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Wong, ES, Rupp, ME, Mermel, L, et al. Public disclosure of healthcare-associated infections: the role of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005; 26:210–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Weinstein, RA, Siegel, JD, Brennan, PJ. Infection-control report cards—securing patient safety. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:225–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Berens, M. Unhealthy hospitals. Chicago Tribune. July 21, 2002.Google Scholar
7.Fabregas, L. Area hospitals reduce in-house infections. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. July 24, 2002.Google Scholar
8.Burke, JP. Infection control- a problem for patient safety. N Engl J Med 2003;348:651–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Elward, AM, Hollenbeak, CS, Warren, DK, Fraser, VJ. Attributable cost of nosocomial primary bloodstream infection in pediatric intensive care unit patients. Pediatrics 2005; 115:868–872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Roberts, RR, Scott, RD 2nd, Cordell, R, et al. The use of economic modeling to determine the hospital costs associated with nosocomial infections. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:1424–1432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Employer struggles with rising health costs: fewer benefits and employees must contribute more. Lancet 2003; 362:377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Narins, C, Dozier, A, Ling, F, Zareba, W. The influence of public reporting of outcome data on medical decision making by physicians. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:83–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Romano, PS, Chan, BK, Schembri, ME, Rainwater, JA. Can administrative data be used to compare postoperative complication rates across hospitals? Med Care 2002; 40:856–867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Omoigui, NA, Miller, DP, Brown, KJ, et al. Outmigration for coronary bypass surgery in an era of public dissemination of clinical outcomes. Circulation 1996; 93:27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Schneider, EC, Epstein, AM. Influence of cardiac-surgery performance reports on referral practices and access to care: a survey of cardiovascular specialists. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:251–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Garner, J, Jarvis, W, Emori, T, Horan, T, Hughes, J. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections. Am J Infect Control 1988; 16:128–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Wright, SB, Huskins, WC, Dokholyan, RS, Goldmann, DA, Piatt, R. Administrative databases provide inaccurate data for surveillance of long-term central venous catheter-associated infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:946–949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Emori, T, Edward, J, Culver, D, et al. Accuracy of reporting nosocomial infections in intesntive-care-unit patients to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998; 19:308–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Sands, KE, Yokoe, DS, Hooper, DC, et al. Detection of postoperative surgical-site infections: comparison of health plan-based surveillance with hospital-based programs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:741–743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Nosocomial infection rates for interhospital comparison: limitations and possible solutions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991; 12:609–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Release of nosocomial infection data. APIC News 1998; 17:1–5.Google Scholar
22.Edmond, M. Where the rubber hits the road: the healthcare epidemiologist as lobbyist. Society for the Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Los Angeles, CA; 2005.Google Scholar
23.Gastmeier, P, Kampf, G, Hauer, T, et al. Experience with two validation methods in a prevalence survey on nosocomial infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998; 19:668–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar