Skip to main content Accessibility help

Electronic Documentation of Central Venous Catheter—Days: Validation Is Essential

  • Sheri Chernetsky Tejedor (a1) (a2), Gina Garrett (a2), Jesse T. Jacob (a3) (a2), Ellen Meyer (a2), Mary Dent Reyes (a3), Chad Robichaux (a2) and James P. Steinberg (a3) (a2)...



Measurement of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates outside of intensive care units is challenged by the difficulty in reliably determining central venous catheter (CVC) use. The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) allows for use of electronic data for determination of CVC-days, but validation of electronic data has not been studied systematically.


To design and validate a process to reliably measure CVC-days outside of the intensive care units that leverages electronic documentation.


Thirty-four inpatient wards at 2 academic hospitals using a common electronic platform for nursing documentation were studied. Electronic queries were created to capture patient and CVC information, and tools and processes for tracking and reporting errors in documentation were developed. Strategies to validate electronic data included comparisons with manual CVC-day determinations and automated data validation using customized tools. Interventions included redesign of documentation interface, real-time audit with feedback of errors, and education. The primary outcome was patient-level total error rate in electronic CVC-day measurement compared with manually counted CVC-days.


At baseline, there were a mean (± standard deviation) of 0.32 ± 0.25 electronic CVC-day errors (omission and commission errors summed and counted equally) per manually counted CVC-day. After several process improvement cycles over 7 months, the error rate decreased to <0.05 errors per CVC-day and remained at or below this level for 2 years.


Baseline electronic CVC-day counts had a high error rate. Stepwise interventions reduced errors to consistently low levels. Validation of electronic calculation of CVC-days is essential to ensure accuracy, particularly if these data will be used for interinstitutional comparison.


Corresponding author

Division of Hospital Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Emory Health-care, Information Services, 57 Executive Park South, Suite 400, Atlanta GA 30329 (


Hide All
1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Healthcare Safety Network. Central Line-Associated Blood-stream Infection Event-Device Associated Module Surveillance Protocol. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012. Accessed January 13, 2013.
2.Srinivasan, A, Wise, M, Bell, M, et al.Vital signs: central line-associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep 2011;60:243248.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). April 2013 CDC/NHSN protocol corrections, clarification, and additions. Accessed January 13, 2013.
4.Wright, SB, Huskins, WC, Dokholyan, RS, et al.Administrative databases provide inaccurate data for surveillance of long-term central venous catheter-associated infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:946949.
5.Trick, WE, Chapman, WW, Wisniewski, MF, Peterson, BJ, Solomon, SL, Weinstein, RA. Electronic interpretation of chest radiograph reports to detect central venous catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:950954.
6.Hota, B, Harting, B, Weinstein, RA, et al.Electronic algorthimic prediction of central vascular catheter use. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:411.
7.Infusion Nurses Society. Nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 20ll;34(suppl 1):S20S21.
8.Dougherty, L. Maintaining vascular access devices: the nurse's role. Support Care Cancer 2000;6(l):2330.
9.Camp-Sorrell, D, ed. Access Device Guidelines: Recommendations for Nursing Practice and Education. 3rd ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Oncology Nursing Society, 2011.
10.Shojania, KG, McDonald, KM, Wächter, RM, Owens, K. Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Improvement Strategies, Volume 1: Series Overview and Methodology. Technical Review 9 (contract 290-02-0017 to the Stanford University-UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center). AHRQ publication 04-0051-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2004.

Electronic Documentation of Central Venous Catheter—Days: Validation Is Essential

  • Sheri Chernetsky Tejedor (a1) (a2), Gina Garrett (a2), Jesse T. Jacob (a3) (a2), Ellen Meyer (a2), Mary Dent Reyes (a3), Chad Robichaux (a2) and James P. Steinberg (a3) (a2)...


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