Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:40:22.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A systematic review of central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) diagnostic reliability and error

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2019

Emily N. Larsen Open the ORCID record for Emily N. Larsen [Opens in a new window] ,
Nicole Gavin Open the ORCID record for Nicole Gavin [Opens in a new window] ,
Nicole Marsh ,
Claire M. Rickard Open the ORCID record for Claire M. Rickard [Opens in a new window] ,
Naomi Runnegar Open the ORCID record for Naomi Runnegar [Opens in a new window]  and
Joan Webster Open the ORCID record for Joan Webster [Opens in a new window]
Emily N. Larsen*
Affiliation:
Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Nursing & Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Nicole Gavin
Affiliation:
Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Nursing & Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia School of Nursing and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Nicole Marsh
Affiliation:
Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Nursing & Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Claire M. Rickard
Affiliation:
Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Nursing & Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Naomi Runnegar
Affiliation:
Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Southside Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Department of Infectious Diseases, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Joan Webster
Affiliation:
Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Nursing & Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Ms Emily Larsen, Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Level 2, Bldg 34, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Cnr. Bowen Bridge Rd and Butterfield St, Herston QLD 4029 Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To establish the reliability of the application of National Health and Safety Network (NHSN) central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) criteria within established reporting systems internationally.

Design:

Diagnostic-test accuracy systematic review.

Methods:

We conducted a search of Medline, SCOPUS, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EbscoHost), and PubMed (NCBI). Cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared publicly reported CLABSI rates and were conducted by independent and expertly trained reviewers using NHSN/Centers for Disease Control (or equivalent) criteria. Two independent reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 tool. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were analyzed.

Results:

A systematic search identified 1,259 publications; 9 studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 7,160 central lines). Publicly reported CLABSI rates were more likely to be underestimated (7 studies) than overestimated (2 studies). Specificity ranged from 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–0.81) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99–1.00) and sensitivity ranged from 0.42 (95% CI, 0.15–0.72) to 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77–0.95). Four studies, which included a consecutive series of patients (whole cohort), reported CLABSI incidence between 9.8% and 20.9%, and absolute CLABSI rates were underestimated by 3.3%–4.4%. The risk of bias was low to moderate in most included studies.

Conclusions:

Our findings suggest consistent underestimation of true CLABSI incidence within publicly reported rates, weakening the validity and reliability of surveillance measures. Auditing, education, and adequate resource allocation is necessary to ensure that surveillance data are accurate and suitable for benchmarking and quality improvement measures over time.

Registration:

Prospectively registered with International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID CRD42015021989; June 7, 2015). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID%3dCRD42015021989

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 40 , Issue 10 , October 2019 , pp. 1100 - 1106
Copyright
© 2019 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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bloodstream Infection Event (Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection and Non-central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection). Atlanta: CDC; 2018. 4.1–4.39.Google Scholar
Pakyz, AL and Edmond, MB. Influence of state laws mandating reporting of healthcare-associated infections: the case of central line–associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;00:780–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimlichman, E, Henderson, D, Tamir, O, et al. Health care–associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Internal Medicine 2013;173:2039–2046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaye, KS, Marchaim, D, Chen, TY, et al. Effect of nosocomial bloodstream infections on mortality, length of stay, and hospital costs in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014;62:306–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, B, Tao, L, Rosenthal, VD, et al. Device-associated infection rates, device use, length of stay, and mortality in intensive care units of 4 Chinese hospitals: International Nosocomial Control Consortium findings. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:301–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Umscheid, CA, Mitchell, MD, Doshi, JA, et al. Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:101–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’grady, NP, Alexander, M, Burns, LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(9):e162–e193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiGiorgio, MJ, Fatica, C, Oden, M, et al. Development of a modified surveillance definition of central line–associated bloodstream infections for patients with hematologic malignancies. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:865–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venable, A, Dissanaike, S. Is automated electronic surveillance for healthcare-associated infections accurate in the burn unit? J Burn Care Res 2013;34:591–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Worth, L, Daley, A, Spelman, T, et al. Central and peripheral line-associated bloodstream infections in Australian neonatal and paediatric intensive care units: findings from a comprehensive Victorian surveillance network, 2008–2016. J Hosp Infect 2018;99:55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Surveillance of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Prevention Indicators in European Intensive Care Units. Stockholm: ECDC; 2017.Google Scholar
Lin, MY, Hota, B, Khan, YM, et al. Quality of traditional surveillance for public reporting of nosocomial bloodstream infection rates. JAMA 2010;304:2035–2041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talbot, TR, Bratzler, DW, Carrico, RM, et al. Public reporting of health care–associated surveillance data: recommendations from the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:631–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, MY, Marc, JMB. The dilemma of assessment bias in infection control research. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:1342–1347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, M-O, Allen-Bridson, K, Hebden, JN. Assessment of the accuracy and consistency in the application of standardized surveillance definitions: a summary of the American Journal of Infection Control and National Healthcare Safety Network case studies, 2010–2016. Am J Infect Control 2017;45:607–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emori, TG, Edwards, JR, Culver, DH, et al. Accuracy of reporting nosocomial infections in intensive-care–unit patients to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System: a pilot study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:308–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Backman, LA, Melchreit, R, Rodriguez, R. Validation of the surveillance and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infection data to a state health department. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:832–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, DL, Makvandi, M, and Baumbach, J. Validation of central line–associated bloodstream infection data in a voluntary reporting state: New Mexico. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:122–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baratloo, A, Hosseini, M, Negida, A, Ashal, GE. Part 1: simple definition and calculation of accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. Emergency 2015;3:48–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Whiting, PF, Rutjes, AW, Westwood, ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazamy, PA, Van Antwerpen, C, Tserenpuntsag, B, et al. Trends in validity of central line–associated bloodstream infection surveillance data, New York State, 2007–2010. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:1200–1204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rich, KL, Reese, SM, Bol, KA, Gilmartin, HM, Janosz, T. Assessment of the quality of publicly reported central line-associated bloodstream infection data in Colorado, 2010. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:874–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oh, JY, Cunningham, MC, Beldavs, ZG, et al. Statewide validation of hospital-reported central line–associated bloodstream infections: Oregon, 2009. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:439–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBryde, ES, Brett, J, Russo, PL, et al. Validation of statewide surveillance system data on central line–associated bloodstream infection in intensive care units in Australia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:1045–1049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fontela, PS, Rocher, I, Platt, RW, et al. Evaluation of the reporting validity of central line–associated bloodstream infection data to a provincial surveillance program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:217–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwak, Y, Choi, J, Yoo, H, et al. Validation of the Korean National Healthcare-associated Infections Surveillance System (KONIS): an intensive care unit module report. J Hosp Infect 2017;96:377–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
López-Pueyo, M, Olaechea-Astigarraga, P, Palomar-Martinez, M, et al. Quality control of the surveillance programme of ICU-acquired infection (ENVIN–HELICS registry) in Spain. J Hosp Infect 2013;84:126–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beekmann, SE, Diekema, DJ, Huskins, WC, et al. Diagnosing and reporting of central line–associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:875–882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;33:932–935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, KR, Goeschel, CA, Cosgrove, SE, Romig, M, Berenholtz, SM. Prevention of central line–associated bloodstream infections: a journey toward eliminating preventable harm. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2011;13:343–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiGiorgio, MJ, Vinski, J, Bertin, M, et al. Single-center study of interrater agreement in the identification of central line–associated bloodstream infection. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:638–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, J, Greene, T, Howell, J, et al. Agreement in classifying bloodstream infections among multiple reviewers conducting surveillance. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:364–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;34:171–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klompas, MMDMPH. Interobserver variability in ventilator-associated pneumonia surveillance. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:237–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, SC, Linkin, DR, Fishman, NO, Lautenbach, E. Variations in identification of healthcare-associated infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:678–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zacharioudakis, IM, Zervou, FN, Arvanitis, M, et al. Antimicrobial lock solutions as a method to prevent central line–associated bloodstream infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:1741–1749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, R, Moore, LS, Alvarez, LG, Charlett, A, Holmes, A. Advances in electronic surveillance for healthcare-associated infections in the 21st century: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2013;84:106–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, M-O, Fisher, A, John, M, et al. The electronic medical record as a tool for infection surveillance: successful automation of device-days. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:364–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Backman, LA, Nobert, G, Melchreit, R, Fekieta, R, Dembry, LM. Validation of the surveillance and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infection denominator data. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:28–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Mourik, MSM, van Duijn, PJ, Moons, KGM, Bonten, MJM, Lee, GM. Accuracy of administrative data for surveillance of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2015;5(8):e008424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed