4.5 Article

Performance characteristics and associated outcomes for an automated surveillance tool for bloodstream infection

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 44, 期 5, 页码 567-571

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.12.044

关键词

Electronic surveillance; central line-associated bloodstream infection; outcomes; electronic health record

资金

  1. CareFusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate performance metrics and associated patient outcomes of an automated surveillance system, the blood Nosocomial Infection Marker (NIM). Methods: We reviewed records of 237 patients with and 36,927 patients without blood NIM using the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) definition for laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection (BSI) as the gold standard. We matched cases with noncases by propensity score and estimated attributable mortality and cost of NHSN-reportable central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) and non-NHSN-reportable BSIs. Results: For patients with central lines (CL), the blood NIM had 73.2% positive predictive value (PPV), 99.9% negative predictive value (NPV), 89.2% sensitivity, and 99.7% specificity. For all patients regardless of CL status, the blood NIM had 53.6% PPV, 99.9% NPV, 84.0% sensitivity, and 99.9% specificity. For CLABSI cases compared with noncases, mortality was 17.5% versus 9.4% (P=.098), and median charge was $143,935 (interquartile range [IQR], $89,794-$257,447) versus $115,267 (IQR, $74,937-$173,053) (P<.01). For non NHSN-reportable BSI cases compared with noncases, mortality was 23.6% versus 6.7% (P<.0001), and median charge was $86,927 (IQR, $54,728-$156,669) versus $62,929 (IQR, $36,743-$115,693) (P<.0001). Conclusions: The NIM is an effective screening tool for BSI. Both NHSN-reportable and non-reportable BSI cases were associated with increased mortality and cost. (C) 2016 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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