4.5 Article

Validation of intensive care unit-acquired infection surveillance in the Italian SPIN-UTI network

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
卷 76, 期 2, 页码 139-142

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2010.05.013

关键词

Nosocomial infections; Surveillance; Validation study

资金

  1. University of Catania
  2. LAPOSS
  3. University of Sassari

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Validity is one of the most critical factors concerning surveillance of nosocomial infections (NIs). This article describes the first validation study of the Italian Nosocomial Infections Surveillance in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) project (SPIN-UTI) surveillance data. The objective was to validate infection data and thus to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of NI data reported on patients in the ICUs participating in the SPIN-UTI network. A validation study was performed at the end of the surveillance period. All medical records including all clinical and laboratory data were reviewed retrospectively by the trained physicians of the validation team and a positive predictive value (PPV), a negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Eight ICUs (16.3%) were randomly chosen from all 49 SPIN-UTI ICUs for the validation study. In total, the validation team reviewed 832 patient charts (27.3% of the SPIN-UTI patients). The PPV was 83.5% and the NPV was 97.3%. The overall sensitivity was 82.3% and overall specificity was 97.2%. Over-and under-reporting of NIs were related to misinterpretation of the case definitions and deviations from the protocol despite previous training and instructions. The results of this study are useful to identify methodological problems within a surveillance system and have been used to plan retraining for surveillance personnel and to design and implement the second phase of the SPIN-UTI project. (C) 2010 The Hospital Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据