How Many Nosocomial Infections Are Missed If Identification Is Restricted to Patients With Either Microbiology Reports or Antibiotic Administration?
- 1 February 1999
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
- Vol. 20 (2) , 124-127
- https://doi.org/10.1086/501600
Abstract
Objective:To investigate how many nosocomial infections would be missed if surveillance activities were restricted to patients having either microbiology reports or antibiotic administration.Design:Analysis of data from a large prevalence study on nosocomial infections (Nosocomial Infections in Germany— Surveillance and Prevention).Setting:A total of 14,966 patients were investigated in medical, surgical, obstetric-gynecologic, and intensive-care units of 72 German hospitals representatively selected according to size. Five hundred eighteen patients (3.5%) had at least one nosocomial infection. Microbiology reports were available for 56.6% of these patients on the prevalence day, and 86.3% received antibiotics.Results:Only 31 nosocomially infected patients (6%) would have been missed by using either microbiology reports or antibiotic treatment as an indicator. These indicators of nosocomial infections had a high diagnostic sensitivity for nosocomial pneumonia (98.8%), urinary tract infections (96.3%), and primary bloodstream infections (95.3%), but a lower sensitivity for wound infections (85.4%). Thus, 97.4% of all nosocomial infections were found with this method in intensive-care units and 96.1% in medicine units, but only 89.7% in surgical departments. In 9 (12.5%) of 72 hospitals, the overall sensitivity would have been <80% using a combination of the two indicators. For this reason, the situation in one's own hospital should be checked before using this method.Conclusions:After checking the situation in one's own hospital, the “either-or” approach using the two indicators “microbiology report” and “antibiotic administration” can be recommended as a time-saving measure to diagnose pneumonia, urinary tract, and primary bloodstream infections. For wound infections, additional information obtained by changing dressings or participating in ward rounds is necessary to achieve satisfactory sensitivity in the surveillance of nosocomial infections. Of course, it is necessary that the surveillance staff discard all false positives to ensure a satisfactory specificity.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Prevalence of nosocomial infections in representative German hospitalsJournal of Hospital Infection, 1998
- The development of an infection control link-nurse programme in a district general hospitalJournal of Hospital Infection, 1996
- An evaluation of surveillance methods for detecting infections in hospital inpatientsJournal of Hospital Infection, 1993
- Electronic Surveillance of Antibiotic Exposure and Coded Discharge Diagnoses as Indicators of Postoperative Infection and Other Quality Assurance MeasuresInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 1993
- CDC Definitions of Nosocomial Surgical Site Infections, 1992: A Modification of CDC Definitions of Surgical Wound InfectionsInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 1992
- NOSOCOMIAL INFECTIONS: VALIDATION OF SURVEILLANCE AND COMPUTER MODELING TO IDENTIFY PAT AT RISKAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 1990
- CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988American Journal of Infection Control, 1988
- Surveillance for the detection of nesocomial infections and the potential for nesocomial outbreaks I. Microbiology culture surveillance is an effective method of detecting nosocomial infectionAmerican Journal of Infection Control, 1984
- Surveillance for Nosocomial Infections: Can the Sources of Data Be Reduced?Infection Control, 1980
- HOSPITAL-ACQUIRED INFECTIONS I. SURVEILLANCE IN A UNIVERSITY HOSPITALAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 1976