4.5 Article

Effectiveness of a nationwide nosocomial infection surveillance system for reducing nosocomial infections

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
卷 64, 期 1, 页码 16-22

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2006.04.017

关键词

surveillance; nosocomial infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, several countries have established surveillance systems for nosocomial. infections (NIs) on a national basis. Limited information has been published on the effectiveness of these national. surveillance systems. The aim of this study was to investigate whether participation in the German national. NI surveillance system (Krankenhaus Infektions Surveillance System (KISS)] resulted in reduced rates of NIs. Three major NIs were studied: ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and central-venous-catheter-related primary bloodstream infections (CR-BSIs) in intensive care units (ICUs), and surgical site infections (SSIs) in surgical inpatients. Data were collected from January 1997 until December 2003. Only institutions that had participated in KISS for at [east 36 months were considered for analysis. Data from the first 12 months of surveillance were compared with data from the second and third 12-month periods. One hundred and fifty ICUs and 133 surgical. departments fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In their first year of participation in KISS, the ICUs had an average VAP rate of 11.2 per 1000 ventilator-days and a CR-BSI rate of 2.1 per 1000 catheter-days. The average SSI rate in the surgical inpatients was 1.6 per 100 operations in their first year of participation. Comparing the infection rates in the third year with the first year, the relative risk (RR) for VAP was 0.71 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.66-0.76] and the RR for CR-BSI was 0.80 (95% Cl 0.72-0.90). The corresponding RR for SSI was 0.72 [95% CI 0.64-0.80]. Participation in KISS was associated with a significant reduction in these three NIs. (c) 2006 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