First Year of Mandatory Reporting of Healthcare-Associated Infections, Pennsylvania An Infection Control—Chart Abstractor Collaboration
- 1 September 2006
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
- Vol. 27 (9) , 926-930
- https://doi.org/10.1086/507281
Abstract
Background.: In 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania mandated hospitals to report healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The increased workload led our Infection Control staff to collaborate with Atlas, a group of chart abstractors.Objective.: The objective of this study was to assess our first year of experience with mandatory reporting of HAIs—specifically, to assess Atlas' contribution to surveillance.Design.: Cases were selected if they had 1 or more of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes designated by Pennsylvania as a possible HAI. After training by the Infection Control staff, Atlas applied National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) system case definitions for catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and surgical site infections (SSIs), and they applied NNIS chest imaging criteria to eliminate cases that were not ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). To assess Atlas' performance, Infection Control staff conducted a parallel review.Results.: For discharges from the hospital during the fourth quarter of 2004, a total of 410 UTIs, 59 SSIs, and 56 VAPs were identified on the basis of state-designated ICD-9-CM codes; review by Atlas/Infection Control determined that 15%, 15%, and 16% of cases met case definitions, respectively. Of cases reviewed by both Infection Control and Atlas, 87% of the assessments made by Atlas were correct for UTI, and 96% were correct for SSI. For VAP, Infection Control concluded that 39% of cases could be ruled out on the basis of chest imaging criteria; Atlas correctly dismissed these 12 cases but incorrectly dismissed an additional 6 (error, 19%). Surveillance was not timely: 1-2 months elapsed between the time of HAI onset and the earliest case review.Conclusions.: With ongoing training by Infection Control, Atlas successfully demonstrated a role in retrospective HAI surveillance. However, despite a major effort to comply with mandates, time lags and other design limitations rendered the data of low utility for Infection Control. States that are planning HAI-reporting programs should standardize an efficient surveillance methodology that yields data capable of guiding interventions to prevent HAI.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Accuracy of Administrative Data for Identifying Patients With PneumoniaAmerican Journal of Medical Quality, 2005
- Guidance on Public Reporting of Healthcare-Associated Infections: Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory CommitteeInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2005
- Public Disclosure of Healthcare-Associated Infections: The Role of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of AmericaInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2005
- Can hospital discharge diagnoses be used for surveillance of surgical-site infections?Journal of Hospital Infection, 2004
- Can Hospital Discharge Diagnosis be used for Surveillance of Bacteremia? A Data Quality Study of a Danish Hospital Discharge RegistryInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 1998
- Can Hospital Discharge Diagnosis Be Used for Surveillance of Bacteremia? A Data Quality Study of a Danish Hospital Discharge RegistryInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 1998