Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:50:54.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Central Line-Associated Infections as Defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital-Acquired Condition versus Standard Infection Control Surveillance Why Hospital Compare Seems Conflicted

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Rebekah W. Moehring ,
Russell Staheli ,
Becky A. Miller ,
Luke Francis Chen ,
Daniel John Sexton  and
Deverick John Anderson
Rebekah W. Moehring*
Affiliation:
Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
Russell Staheli
Affiliation:
Healthcare Quality Catalyst, Bountiful, Utah
Becky A. Miller
Affiliation:
NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois
Luke Francis Chen
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center, Division of Infectious Diseases, Durham, North Carolina
Daniel John Sexton
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center, Division of Infectious Diseases, Durham, North Carolina
Deverick John Anderson
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center, Division of Infectious Diseases, Durham, North Carolina
*
PO Box 10235 DUMC, Durham, NC 27710 (rebekah.moehring@duke.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To evaluate the concordance of case-finding methods for central line-associated infection as defined by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital-acquired condition (HAC) compared with traditional infection control (IC) methods.

Setting.

One tertiary care and 2 community hospitals in North Carolina.

Patients.

Adult and pediatric hospitalized patients determined to have central line infection by either case-finding method.

Methods.

We performed a retrospective comparative analysis of infection detected using HAC versus standard IC central line–associated bloodstream infection surveillance from October 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009. One billing and 2 IC databases were queried and matched to determine the number and concordance of cases identified by each method. Manual review of 25 cases from each discordant category was performed. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated using IC as criterion standard.

Results.

A total of 1,505 cases were identified: 844 by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), and 798 by IC. A total of 204 cases (24%) identified by ICD-9 were deemed not present at hospital admission by coders. Only 112 cases (13%) were concordant. HAC sensitivity was 14% and PPV was 55% compared with IC. Concordance was low regardless of hospital type. Primary reasons for discordance included differences in surveillance and clinical definitions, clinical uncertainty, and poor documentation.

Conclusions.

The case-finding method used by CMS HAC and the methods used for traditional IC surveillance frequently do not agree. This can lead to conflicting results when these 2 measures are used as hospital quality metrics.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , March 2013 , pp. 238 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Klevens, RM, Edwards, JR, Richards, CL Jr, et al. Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep 2007;122(2):160–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: central line-associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal WklyRep 2011;60(8):243–248.Google Scholar
3. Medicare program: changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2008 rates. Fed Regist 2007; 72(162):47129–48175.Google Scholar
4. Medicare program: changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2009 rates; payments for graduate medical education in certain emergency situations; changes to disclosure of physician ownership in hospitals and physician self-referral rules; updates to the long-term care prospective payment system; updates to certain IPPS-excluded hospitals; and collection of information regarding financial relationships between hospitals. Final rales. Fed Regist 2008;73(161):48433–49084.Google Scholar
5. Stevenson, KB, Khan, Y, Dickman, J, et al. Administrative coding data, compared with CDC/NHSN criteria, are poor indicators of health care-associated infections. Am J Infect Control 2008; 36(3):155–164.Google Scholar
6. Sherman, ER, Heydon, KH, St John, KH, et al. Administrative data fail to accurately identify cases of healthcare-associated infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(4):332–337.Google Scholar
7. Stone, PW, Horan, TC, Shih, HC, Mooney-Kane, C, Larson, E. Comparisons of health care-associated infections identification using two mechanisms for public reporting. Am J Infect Control 2007;35(3):145–149.Google Scholar
8. Meddings, J, Saint, S, McMahon, LF Jr. Hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infection: documentation and coding issues may reduce financial impact of Medicare's new payment policy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(6):627–633.Google Scholar
9. Julian, KG, Brumbach, AM, Chicora, MK, et al. First year of mandatory reporting of healthcare-associated infections, Pennsylvania: an infection control-chart abstractor collaboration. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(9):926–930.Google Scholar
10. Pronovost, PJ, Lilford, R. Analysis and commentary: a road map for improving the performance of performance measures. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011;30(4):569–573.Google Scholar
11. Horan, TC, Andrus, M, Dudeck, MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(5):309–332.Google Scholar
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Device-associated module: CLABSI. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/4psc_clabscurrent.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed March 14, 2011.Google Scholar
13. Haut, ER, Pronovost, PJ. Surveillance bias in outcomes reporting. JAMA. 2011;305(23):2462–2463.Google Scholar
14. Emori, TG, Edwards, JR, Culver, DH, et al. Accuracy of reporting nosocomial infections in intensive-care-unit patients to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System: a pilot study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19(5):308–316.Google Scholar
15. Sexton, DJ, Chen, LF, Anderson, DJ. Current definitions of central line-associated bloodstream infection: is the emperor wearing clothes? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(12):1286–1289.Google Scholar
16. Fraser, TG, Gordon, SM. CLABSI rates in immunocompromised patients: a valuable patient centered outcome? Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(12):1446–1450.Google Scholar
17. Jhung, MA, Banerjee, SN. Administrative coding data and health care-associated infections. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49(6):949–955.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Medicare program: hospital inpatient value-based purchasing program. Final rule. Federal Register 2011;76(88):26490–26547.Google Scholar