Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T11:33:16.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surveillance for Nosocomial Infections: Can the Sources of Data Be Reduced?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Peter A. Gross ,
Amy Beaugard  and
Carole Van Antwerpen
Peter A. Gross*
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine, Hackensack Hospital, Hackensack, New Jersey and Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
Amy Beaugard
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine, Hackensack Hospital, Hackensack, New Jersey and Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
Carole Van Antwerpen
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine, Hackensack Hospital, Hackensack, New Jersey and Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
*
Johnson Hall, Room 121, Hackensack Hospital, Hackensack, NJ 07601
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the goal of achieving economy in infection control surveillance we tested the relative efficiency of the various surveillance sources for detecting nosocomial infections (NIs). We reviewed the initial and final surveillance sources of 415 NIs at Hackensack Hospital during an 11-month period; cultures were taken on most of the patients with NIs. Positive microbiology cultures were the initial sources in 64.8% of NIs and secondary sources in 23.6%. Chart review of patients with positive cultures added another 2.9%. Therefore, 91.3% of NIs could have been detected by positive culture reports. The remainder were discoverable by notification from nurses, or by studying admission cards or temperature rounds. Although the NIs missed by lack of a positive culture report often were significant infections, these alternate methods of surveillance did not help to detect any clusters of infections that could be traced to a particular source among the staff or the environment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , August 1980 , pp. 233 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1980

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.Wenzel, RP, Osterman, CA, Hunting, KJ, Gwaltney, JM Jr. Hospital-acquired infections. I. Surveillance in a university hospital. Am J Epidemiol 1976;103:251-60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Britt, MR, Burke, JP, Nordquist, AG, Wilfert, JN, Smith, CB. Infection control in small hospitals. JAMA 1976;236:1700-03.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Hofherr, L. Nosocomial infection surveillance techniques—A review. APIC Journal 1979;9:12–15.Google Scholar
4.Aber, RC, Bennett, JV. Surveillance of nosocomial infections. In Bennett, JV, Brachman, PD (eds): Hospital Infections. Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1979, 53–61.Google Scholar
5.Center for Disease Control. National Nosocomial Infections Study Report. Annual Summary 1977. Atlanta, CDC, DHEW, Nov. 1979.Google Scholar
6.Ressner, D, Lepper, M. Epidemiologic studies of gram-negative bacilli in the hospital and community. Am J Epidemiol 1967;85:45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Valenti, WM, Hall, CB, Douglas, RG Jr, Menegus, MA, Pincus, PH. Nosocomial viral infections: I. Epidemiology and significance. Infect Control 1980;1:33–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Hoke, CH, Batt, JM, Mirrett, S, Cox, RL, Reller, LB. False-positive gram-stained smears. JAMA 1979;241:478-80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Chelgren, C, LaForce, FM. Limited, periodic surveillance proves practical and effective. Hospitals, J Am Hosp Assoc 1978;52:151-54.Google ScholarPubMed