Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:15:57.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Building and Validating a Computerized Algorithm for Surveillance of Ventilator-Associated Events

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2015

Tal Mann ,
Joseph Ellsworth ,
Najia Huda ,
Anupama Neelakanta ,
Thomas Chevalier ,
Kristin L. Sims ,
Sorabh Dhar ,
Mary E. Robinson  and
Keith S. Kaye
Tal Mann
Affiliation:
General ICU, Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center, Tsrifin, Israel Department of Medicine, Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Joseph Ellsworth
Affiliation:
Department of Corporate Quality and Safety/Epidemiology, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Najia Huda
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Anupama Neelakanta
Affiliation:
Carolina Health System, Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Thomas Chevalier
Affiliation:
Department of Corporate Quality and Safety/Epidemiology, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Kristin L. Sims
Affiliation:
Detroit Medical Center, Detroit Michigan, United States
Sorabh Dhar
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Mary E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Corporate Quality and Safety/Epidemiology, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Keith S. Kaye*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, United States
*
Address correspondence to Keith S. Kaye, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine, Corporate Vice President of Quality and Patient Safety, Corporate Medical Director, Infection Prevention, Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Stewardship, Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center, University Health Center, 4201 Saint Antoine, Suite 2B, Box 331, Detroit, MI 48201 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To develop an automated method for ventilator-associated condition (VAC) surveillance and to compare its accuracy and efficiency with manual VAC surveillance

SETTING

The intensive care units (ICUs) of 4 hospitals

METHODS

This study was conducted at Detroit Medical Center, a tertiary care center in metropolitan Detroit. A total of 128 ICU beds in 4 acute care hospitals were included during the study period from August to October 2013. The automated VAC algorithm was implemented and utilized for 1 month by all study hospitals. Simultaneous manual VAC surveillance was conducted by 2 infection preventionists and 1 infection control fellow who were blinded to each another’s findings and to the automated VAC algorithm results. The VACs identified by the 2 surveillance processes were compared.

RESULTS

During the study period, 110 patients from all the included hospitals were mechanically ventilated and were evaluated for VAC for a total of 992 mechanical ventilation days. The automated VAC algorithm identified 39 VACs with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. In comparison, the combined efforts of the IPs and the infection control fellow detected 58.9% of VACs, with 59% sensitivity, 99% specificity, 91% PPV, and 92% NPV. Moreover, the automated VAC algorithm was extremely efficient, requiring only 1 minute to detect VACs over a 1-month period, compared to 60.7 minutes using manual surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

The automated VAC algorithm is efficient and accurate and is ready to be used routinely for VAC surveillance. Furthermore, its implementation can optimize the sensitivity and specificity of VAC identification.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;36(9):999–1003

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 36 , Issue 9 , September 2015 , pp. 999 - 1003
Copyright
© 2015 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

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. Klompas, M. Does this patient have ventilator-associated pneumonia? JAMA 2007;297:1583–1593.Google Scholar
2. Tejerina, E, Esteban, A, Fernandez-Segoviano, P, et al. Accuracy of clinical definitions of ventilator-associated pneumonia: comparison with autopsy findings. J Crit Care 2010;25:62–68.Google Scholar
3. Petersen, IS, Aru, A, Skodt, V, et al. Evaluation of pneumonia diagnosis in intensive care patients. Scand J Infect Dis 1999;31:299–303.Google Scholar
4. Rao, VK, Ritter, J, Kollef, MH. Utility of transbronchial biopsy in patients with acute respiratory failure: a postmortem study. Chest 1998;114:549–555.Google Scholar
5. Klompas, M. Ventilator-associated events surveillance: a patient safety opportunity. Curr Opin Crit Care 2013;19:424–431.Google Scholar
6. Klompas, M, Khan, Y, Kleinman, K, et al. Multicenter evaluation of a novel surveillance paradigm for complications of mechanical ventilation. PLoS One 2011;6:e18062.Google Scholar
7. Hayashi, Y, Morisawa, K, Klompas, M, et al. Toward improved surveillance: the impact of ventilator-associated complications on length of stay and antibiotic use in patients in intensive care units. Clin Infect Dis 2013;56:471–477.Google Scholar
8. Magill, SS, Klompas, M, Balk, R, et al. Developing a new national approach to surveillance for ventilator-associated events: executive summary. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:1096–1099.Google Scholar