Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T20:19:36.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection Does Changing the Definition Change Quality?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Matthew J. Press  and
Joshua P. Metlay
Matthew J. Press*
Affiliation:
Departments of Public Health and Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Joshua P. Metlay
Affiliation:
Center for Healthcare Improvement and Patient Safety, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
*
Department of Public Health, Weill Cornell Medical College, 402 East 67th Street, New York, NY 10065 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently narrowed its definition of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) to exclude asymptomatic bacteriuria. Although CAUTI rates decreased after the definition was changed, rates of related measures remained relatively stagnant, which indicates that longitudinal measurements of CAUTI may be misleading and that the change in definition did not itself impact care.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , March 2013 , pp. 313 - 315
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. Foxman, B. Epidemiology of urinary tract infections: incidence, morbidity, and economic costs. Am J Med 2002;113(suppl 1A): 5S–13S.Google Scholar
2. Mourad, M, Auerbach, A. Improving use of the “other” catheter: comment on “reducing inappropriate urinary catheter use.” Arch Intern Med 2012;172(3):260–261.Google Scholar
3. Dudeck, MA, Horan, TC, Peterson, KD, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report, data summary for 2009, device-associated module. Am J Infect Control 2011;39(5):349–367.Google Scholar
4. Gross, PA, Patel, B. Reducing antibiotic overuse: a call for a national performance measure for not treating asymptomatic bac-teriuria. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45(10):1335–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Trautner, BW. Management of catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2010;23(1):76–82.Google Scholar
6. Fakih, MG, Greene, MT, Kennedy, EH, et al. Introducing a population-based outcome measure to evaluate the effect of interventions to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(4):359–364.Google Scholar
7. Cope, M, Cevallos, ME, Cadle, RM, et al. Inappropriate treatment of catheter-associated asymptomatic bacteriuria in a tertiary care hospital. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48(9):1182–1188.Google Scholar
8. Rotjanapan, P, Dosa, D, Thomas, KS. Potentially inappropriate treatment of urinary tract infections in two Rhode Island nursing homes. Arch Intern Med 2011;171(5):438–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed