Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:03:21.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality Gaps in Documenting Urinary Catheter Use and Infectious Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Barbara W. Trautner ,
Jan E. Patterson ,
Nancy J. Petersen ,
Sylvia Hysong ,
Deborah Horwitz ,
G. John Chen ,
Patti Grota  and
Aanand D. Naik
Barbara W. Trautner*
Affiliation:
Houston Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Jan E. Patterson
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine-Infectious Diseases, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas
Nancy J. Petersen
Affiliation:
Houston Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Sylvia Hysong
Affiliation:
Houston Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Deborah Horwitz
Affiliation:
Houston Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
G. John Chen
Affiliation:
Houston Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Patti Grota
Affiliation:
South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas
Aanand D. Naik
Affiliation:
Houston Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
*
MEDVAMC HSR&D CoE (152), 2002 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To describe the frequency of use of all types of urinary catheters, including but not limited to indwelling catheters, as well as positive cultures associated with the various types. We also determined the accuracy of catheter-days reporting at our institution.

Design.

Prospective, observational trial based on patient-level review of the electronic medical record. Chart review was compared with standard methods of catheter surveillance and reporting by infection control personnel.

Setting.

Ten internal medicine and 5 long-term care wards in 2 tertiary care Veterans Affairs hospitals in Texas from July 2010 through June 2011.

Participants.

The study included 7,866 inpatients.

Methods.

Measurements included patient bed-days; days of use of indwelling, external, suprapubic, and intermittent urinary catheters; number of urine cultures obtained and culture results; and infection control reports of indwelling catheter-days.

Results.

We observed 7,866 inpatients with 128,267 bed-days on acute medicine and extended care wards during the study. A urinary catheter was used on 36.9% of the total bed-days observed. Acute medicine wards collected more urine cultures per 1,000 bed-days than did the extended care wards (75.9 and 10.4 cultures per 1,000 bed-days, respectively; P < .0001 ). Catheter-days were divided among indwelling-catheter-days (47.8%), external-catheter-days (48.4%), and other (intermittent- and suprapubic-catheter-days, 3.8%). External catheters contributed to 376 (37.3%) of the 1,009 catheter-associated positive urine cultures. Urinary-catheter-days reported to the infection control department missed 20.1% of the actual days of indwelling catheter use, whereas 12.0% of their reported catheter-days were false.

Conclusions.

Urinary catheter use was extremely common. External catheters accounted for a large portion of catheter-associated bacteriuria, and standard practices for tracking urinary-catheter-days were unreliable.

Trial Registration.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01052545.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 34 , Issue 8 , August 2013 , pp. 793 - 799
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.Chenoweth, CE, Saint, S. Urinary tract infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2011;5:103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Meddings, J, Saint, S, McMahon, LF Jr. Hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infection: documentation and coding issues may reduce financial impact of Medicare's new payment policy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:627–633.Google Scholar
3. The Joint Commission. New 2012 national patient safety goal: catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI). 2011. (NPSG 07.06.01). May 17, 2011. http://www.jointcommission.org/new_2012_national_patient_safety_goal_cauti/. Accessed November 2, 2011.Google Scholar
4.Lo, E, Nicolle, L, Classen, D, et al.Strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(suppl 1):S41–S50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Hooton, TM, Bradley, SF, Cardenas, DD, et al.Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2010;50:625–663.Google Scholar
6.Smith, PW, Bennett, G, Bradley, S, et al.SHEA/APIC guideline: infection prevention and control in the long-term care facility. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:504–535.Google Scholar
7.Yokoe, DS, Mermel, LA, Anderson, DJ, et al.A compendium of strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(suppl 1): S12–S21.Google Scholar
8.Jones, M, Samore, MH, Carter, M, Rubin, MA. Long-term care facilities in Utah: a description of human and information technology resources applied to infection control practice. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:446–450.Google Scholar
9.Zoutman, DE, Ford, BD, Gauthier, J. A cross-Canada survey of infection prevention and control in long-term care facilities. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:358–363.Google Scholar
10.Horan, TC, Andrus, M, Dudeck, MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of healthcare-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:309–332. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/17pscNosInfDef_current.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2011.Google Scholar
11.Saint, S, Kaufman, SR, Rogers, MA, Baker, PD, Ossenkop, K, Lipsky, BA. Condom versus indwelling urinary catheters: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54:1055–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Saint, S, Kowalski, CP, Kaufman, SR, et al.Preventing hospital-acquired urinary tract infection in the United States: a national study. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46(2):243–250.Google Scholar
13.Burns, AC, Petersen, NJ, Garza, A, et al.Accuracy of a urinary catheter surveillance protocol. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:55–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Lowry, R. Clinical calculator 1: from an observed sample, http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/clinl.html. Accessed February 8, 2011.Google Scholar
15.Newcombe, RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17(8): 857–872.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Ouslander, JG, Greengold, BA, Silverblatt, FJ, Garcia, JP. An accurate method to obtain urine for culture in men with external catheters. Arch Intern Med 1987;147:286–288.Google Scholar
17.Ouslander, JG, Greengold, B, Chen, S. External catheter use and urinary tract infections among incontinent male nursing home patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1987;35(12):1063–1070.Google Scholar
18.Hirsh, DD, Fainstein, V, Musher, DM. Do condom catheter collecting systems cause urinary tract infection? JAMA 1979;242: 340–341.Google Scholar
19.Zimakoff, J, Stickler, DJ, Pontoppidan, B, Larsen, SO. Bladder management and urinary tract infections in Danish hospitals, nursing homes, and home care: a national prevalence study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:215–221.Google Scholar
20.Trick, WE, Samore, M. Denominators for device infections: who and how to count. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:641–643.Google Scholar
21.Wright, MO, Kharasch, M, Beaumont, JL, Peterson, LR, Robicsek, A. Reporting catheter-associated urinary tract infections: denominator matters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:635–640.Google Scholar
22.Meddings, JA, Reichert, H, Rogers, MAM, Saint, S, Stephansky, J, McMahon, LF. Effect of nonpayment for hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Ann Int Med 2012;157: 305–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) event. In: NHSN Patient Safety Component Manual. National Healthcare Safety Network. June 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/7pscCAUTIcurrent.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2011.Google Scholar
24.Jain, R, Kralovic, SM, Evans, ME, et al.Veterans Affairs initiative to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1419–1430.Google Scholar
25.South, BR, Shen, S, Jones, M, et al.Developing a manually annotated clinical document corpus to identify phenotypic information for inflammatory bowel disease. BMC Bioinformatics 2009;10(Suppl 9):S1–32.Google Scholar
26.Choudhuri, JA, Pergamit, RF, Chan, JD, et al.An electronic catheter-associated urinary tract infection surveillance tool. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:757–762.Google Scholar