4.5 Article

Validation of the surveillance and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infection denominator data

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 28-33

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2013.06.014

Keywords

Health care-associated infections; Data validation; National Healthcare Safety Network Surveillance system

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: While the main focus of validating central line-associated infections (CLABIs) has been applying strict definitions to identify cases, assessing the denominator counts has received less attention. This study evaluates the accuracy of the reporting of CLABSI denominator patient-day (PD) and central line-day (CLD) counts to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) system in one state. Methods: The Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH) performed a blinded retrospective chart review on the collection of CLABSI PD and CLD on 9 selected days during the fourth quarter of 2009 from 23 acute care hospitals. Results: Overall, 1,988 intensive care unit patient charts were reviewed. Comparison of hospital and CT DPH counts identified over-reporting by 300 PD (17.2%) and 200 CLD (21.7%) with 17 hospitals (74%) collecting data manually. PD manual collection methods were more accurate than electronic methods (P < .01). For CLD, there was no significant difference in collection method (P > .05). Wednesday PD counts were more accurate than Monday (P < .05) or Saturday (P < .05). For CLD counts, there was no significant difference among the 3 days (P > .05). Conclusion: Our results provide some evidence for the prerequisite internal validation of denominator data by hospitals before reporting to the national surveillance system. Copyright (C) 2014 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available