4.0 Article

Interhospital differences in nosocomial infection rates - Importance of case-mix adjustment

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 162, 期 21, 页码 2437-2442

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.162.21.2437

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Nosocomial infection rates are used to assess patient safety and the effectiveness of health care systems, but adjustment for case-mix, a key factor for benchmarking, is often overlooked. Objectives: To perform a nationwide prevalence study of nosocomial infection and evaluate the impact of hospital size on infection rates. Methods: One-week-period prevalence study in 18 acute care hospitals ranging from small primary to large tertiary care institutions. All adult inpatients in medical, surgical, and intensive care units hospitalized at time of study were included. Infection prevalence and case-mix determinants were calculated according to hospital size. After each factor was tested for its significance on the occurrence of nosocomial infection, all factors were introduced in a multivariate model with hospital size as the main explanatory variable and nosocomial infection as the dependent variable. Results: Among 4252 patients, 429 developed 470 nosocomial infections, for an overall prevalence of 10.1% (intensive care units, 29.7%; medical, 9.3%; surgical, 9.2%; and mixed wards, 14.1%). Unadjusted prevalence rates were 6.1% in small, 10.0% in intermediate, and 10.9% in large hospitals (P=.007). Increased comorbidity (odds ratio, 1.80), cancer (1.68), trauma (1.75), neutropenia (4.66), antibiotic exposure (6.64), history of intensive care unit stay (2.14), referral from another hospital (1.87), intubation for 24 hours or more (2.09), and prolonged stay (3.35) were independently associated with nosocomial infection (all P<0.05), but hospital size was not. Conclusions: Higher infection rates observed in larger hospitals were partly associated with unfavorable case mix. Unadjusted rates may lead to erroneous assumptions for health care prioritization.

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

4.0
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