Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-dc8c957cd-jg5zz Total loading time: 0.237 Render date: 2022-01-27T12:34:26.538Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Analysis of National Healthcare Safety Network Clostridioides difficile Infection Standardized Infection Ratio by Test Type

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2020

Qunna Li
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Andrea Benin
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Alice Guh
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Margaret Dudeck
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Katherine Allen-Bridson
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Denise Leaptrot
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Lawrence McDonald
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Daniel Pollock
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Jonathan Edwards
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Background: The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) has used positive laboratory tests for surveillance of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) LabID events since 2009. Typically, CDIs are detected using enzyme immunoassays (EIAs), nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), or various test combinations. The NHSN uses a risk-adjusted, standardized infection ratio (SIR) to assess healthcare facility-onset (HO) CDI. Despite including test type in the risk adjustment, some hospital personnel and other stakeholders are concerned that NAAT use is associated with higher SIRs than EIA use. To investigate this issue, we analyzed NHSN data from acute-care hospitals for July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018. Methods: Calendar quarters where CDI test type was reported as NAAT (includes NAAT, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)+NAAT and GDH+EIA followed by NAAT if discrepant) or EIA (includes EIA and GDH+EIA) were selected. HO-CDI SIRs were calculated for facility-wide inpatient locations. We conducted the following 2 analyses: (1) Among hospitals that did not switch their test type, we compared the distribution of HO incident rates and SIRs by those reporting NAAT versus EIA. (2) Among hospitals that switched their test type, we selected quarters with a stable switch pattern of 2 consecutive quarters of each of EIA and NAAT (categorized as EIA-to-NAAT or NAAT-to-EIA). Pooled semiannual SIRs for EIA and NAAT were calculated, and a paired t test was used to evaluate the difference in SIRs by switch pattern. Results: Most hospitals did not switch test types (3,242, 89%), and 2,872 (89%) reported sufficient data to calculate an SIR, with 2,444 (85%) using NAAT. The crude pooled HO CDI incidence rates for hospitals using EIAs clustered at the lower end of the histogram versus rates for NAATs (Fig. 1). The SIR distributions, both NAATs and EIAs, overlapped substantially and covered a similar range of SIR values (Fig. 1). Among hospitals with a switch pattern, hospitals were equally likely to have an increase or decrease in their SIRs (Fig. 2). The mean SIR difference for the 42 hospitals switching from EIA to NAAT was 0.048 (95% CI, −0.189 to 0.284; P = .688). The mean SIR difference for the 26 hospitals switching from NAAT to EIA was 0.162 (95% CI, −0.048 to 0.371; P = .124). Conclusions: The pattern of SIR distribution for both NAAT and EIA substantiate the soundness of the NHSN’s risk adjustment for CDI test types. Switching test type did not produce a consistent directional pattern in SIR that was statistically significant.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.
You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Analysis of National Healthcare Safety Network Clostridioides difficile Infection Standardized Infection Ratio by Test Type
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Analysis of National Healthcare Safety Network Clostridioides difficile Infection Standardized Infection Ratio by Test Type
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Analysis of National Healthcare Safety Network Clostridioides difficile Infection Standardized Infection Ratio by Test Type
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *