Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Comparing Bloodstream Infection Rates: The Effect of Indicator Specifications in the Evaluation of Processes and Indicators in Infection Control (EPIC) Study

  • Barbara I. Braun (a1), Stephen B. Kritchevsky (a2), Linda Kusek (a1), Edward S. Wong (a3), Steven L. Solomon (a4), Lynn Steele (a4), Cheryl L. Richards (a1), Robert P. Gaynes (a4), Bryan Simmons (a5) and Evaluation of Processes and Indicators in Infection Control (EPIC) Study Group...

Abstract

Objective.

Bloodstream infection (BSI) rates are used as comparative clinical performance indicators; however, variations in definitions and data-collection approaches make it difficult to compare and interpret rates. To determine the extent to which variation in indicator specifications affected infection rates and hospital performance rankings, we compared absolute rates and relative rankings of hospitals across 5 BSI indicators.

Design.

Multicenter observational study. BSI rate specifications varied by data source (clinical data, administrative data, or both), scope (hospital wide or intensive care unit specific), and inclusion/exclusion criteria. As appropriate, hospital-specific infection rates and rankings were calculated by processing data from each site according to 2-5 different specifications.

Setting.

A total of 28 hospitals participating in the EPIC study.

Participants.

Hospitals submitted deidentified information about all patients with BSIs from January through September 1999.

Results.

Median BSI rates for 2 indicators based on intensive care unit surveillance data ranged from 2.23 to 2.91 BSIs per 1000 central-line days. In contrast, median rates for indicators based on administrative data varied from 0.046 to 7.03 BSIs per 100 patients. Hospital-specific rates and rankings varied substantially as different specifications were applied; the rates of 8 of 10 hospitals were both greater than and less than the mean. Correlations of hospital rankings among indicator pairs were generally low (rs = 0-0.45), except when both indicators were based on intensive care unit surveillance (rs = 0.83).

Conclusions.

Although BSI rates seem to be a logical indicator of clinical performance, the use of various indicator specifications can produce remarkably different judgments of absolute and relative performance for a given hospital. Recent national initiatives continue to mix methods for specifying BSI rates; this practice is likely to limit the usefulness of such information for comparing and improving performance.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Division of Research, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, One Renaissance Boulevard, Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 (bbraun@jcaho.org)

References

Hide All
1.O'Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Dellinger, EP, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002; 51 (RR-10): 129.
2.Wenzel, RP, Edmond, MB. The impact of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001; 7:174177.
3.Jarvis, WR. Selected aspects of the socioeconomic impact of nosocomial infections: morbidity, mortality, cost, and prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17:552557.
4.Mermel, LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related bloodstream infections. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133:392402 [published correction appears in Ann Intern Med 2000; 133:5].
5.Pittet, D, Tarara, D, Wenzel, RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients: excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1994;271:15981601.
6.Nosocomial infection rates for interhospital comparison: limitations and possible solutions: a report from the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991; 12:609621.
7.National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2003, issued August 2003. Am J Infect Control 2003; 31:481498.
8.National Healthcare Quality Report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2003. Publication 04-RG003.
9.Glover, L. Pa. hospitals underreport infection rates. Pittsburgh Business Times. October 1, 2004. Available at; http://www.bizjournals.com/pitts-burgh/stories/2004/10/04/storyl.html?page = 3. Accessed October 4, 2004.
10.McKibben, L, Horan, T, Tokars, JI, et al. Guidance on public reporting of healthcare-associated infections: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 2005; 33:217226.
11.Wong, ES, Rupp, ME, Mermel, L, et al. Public disclosure of healthcare-associated infections: the role of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005; 26:210212.
12.Kritchevsky, SB, Simmons, BP, Braun, BI. The Project to Monitor Indicators: a collaborative effort between the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995; 16:3335.
13.Kritchevsky, SB, Braun, BI, Wong, ES, et al. Impact of hospital care on incidence of bloodstream infection: the Evaluation of Processes and Indicators in Infection Control study. Emerg Infect Dis 2001; 7:193196.
14.Braun, BI, Kritchevsky, SB, Wong, ES, et al. Preventing central venous catheter-associated primary bloodstream infections: characteristics of practices among hospitals participating in the Evaluation of Processes and Indicators in Infection Control (EPIC) study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:926935.
15.Braun, BI, Koss, RG, Loeb, JM. Integrating performance measurement data into the Joint Commission accreditation process. Eval Health Prof 1999; 22:283297.
16.Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128140.
17.Core health data elements: report of the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics. Washington, DC: The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics; August 1996. Available at: http://ncvhs.hhs.gov/ncvhsrl.htm. Accessed October 27, 2004.
18.Puckett, CD. The Educational Annotation of ICD-9-CM. 5th ed. Reno, NV: Channel Publishing Ltd; 2004.
19.Iezzoni, LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127:666674.
20.Osborn, CE. Benchmarking with national ICD-9-CM coded data. J AHIMA 1999; 70:5969.
21.Romano, PS, Chan, BK, Schembri, ME, Rainwater, JA. Can administrative data be used to compare postoperative complication rates across hospitals? Med Care 2002; 40:856867.
22.Dimick, JB, Welch, HG, Birkmeyer, JD. Surgical mortality as an indicator of hospital quality: the problem with small sample size. JAMA 2004; 292:847851.
23.Hannan, EL, Racz, MJ, Jollis, JG, Peterson, ED. Using Medicare claims data to assess provider quality for CABG surgery: does it work well enough? Health Serv Res 1997; 31:659678.
24.Wright, SB, Huskins, WC, Dokholyan, RS, Goldmann, DA, Platt, R. Administrative databases provide inaccurate data for surveillance of long-term central venous catheter-associated infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:946949.
25.Trick, WE, Zagorski, BM, Tokars, JI, et al. Computer algorithms to detect bloodstream infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10:16121620.
26.Emori, TG, Edwards, JR, Culver, DJ, 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; 19:308316.
27.Metzger, BS, White, N, Ray, S, Blumberg, HM. Poor validity of JCAHO-GHA ORYX indicator using a discharge abstract-based method to determine surgical-site infection rates [abstract]. J Investig Med 2001;49: 125A. Abstract 665.
28.Sands, KE, Yokoe, DS, Hooper, DC, et al. Detection of postoperative surgical-site infections: comparison of health plan-based surveillance with hospital-based programs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24: 741743.
29.Kritchevsky, SB, Braun, BI, Gross, PA, Newcomb, CS, Kelleher, CA, Simmons, BP. Definition and adjustment of Cesarean section rates and assessments of hospital performance. Int J Qual Health Care 1999; 11:283291.
30.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Databases and related resources from HCUP. Fact sheet. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; September 2002. Publication No. 02-P030. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/datahcup.htm. Accessed October 27, 2004.
31.National Quality Forum. National Voluntary Consensus Standards for Hospital Care: An Initial Performance Measure Set. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; 2003. Available at: http://www.qualityforum.org. Accessed October 19, 2004.
32.JCAHO and CMS to align quality measures: PI efforts will benefit. Healthcare Benchmarks Qual Improv 2004; 11:121124.
33.Gaynes, RP, Solomon, S. Improving hospital-acquired infection rates: the CDC experience. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1996; 22:457467.
34.Yokoe, DS, Anderson, J, Chambers, R, et al. Simplified surveillance for nosocomial bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998; 19:657660.
35.Hugonnet, S, Sax, H, Eggimann, P, Chevrolet, JC, Pittet, D. Nosocomial bloodstream infection and clinical sepsis. Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10:7681.
36.Tide rises on pay for performance with voluntary reporting initiative. Healthc Financ Manage 2004; 58:120121.

Comparing Bloodstream Infection Rates: The Effect of Indicator Specifications in the Evaluation of Processes and Indicators in Infection Control (EPIC) Study

  • Barbara I. Braun (a1), Stephen B. Kritchevsky (a2), Linda Kusek (a1), Edward S. Wong (a3), Steven L. Solomon (a4), Lynn Steele (a4), Cheryl L. Richards (a1), Robert P. Gaynes (a4), Bryan Simmons (a5) and Evaluation of Processes and Indicators in Infection Control (EPIC) Study Group...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed