Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6f6fcd54b-vzm8p Total loading time: 0.537 Render date: 2021-05-12T03:59:05.552Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: {}

Evaluation of Healthcare-Associated Infection Surveillance in Pennsylvania Hospitals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Aimee J. Palumbo
Affiliation:
Bureau of Epidemiology, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Applied Epidemiology Fellowship, Atlanta, Georgia
P. Ann Loveless
Affiliation:
Bureau of Epidemiology, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Mària E. Moll
Affiliation:
Bureau of Epidemiology, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Stephen Ostroff
Affiliation:
Bureau of Epidemiology, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Objective.

In Pennsylvania, reporting of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) was mandated in 2007, and hospitals were encouraged to implement qualified electronic surveillance (QES) systems to assist HAI detection. This study evaluated the usefulness of these systems in reducing HAIs.

Design.

Online survey and retrospective cohort study. Eligible facilities had a QES or manual system in place for the entire study period and sufficient data in selected hospital units.

Methods.

Surveys were sent to infection preventionists (IPs) in all Pennsylvania hospitals to gather qualitative information about their systems. National Healthcare Safety Network data from Pennsylvania hospitals for July 2008 through June 2010 were used to compare catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) rates in facilities with and without a QES system.

Participants.

IPs from 174 facilities responded to the survey. Data from 119 of 234 hospitals were analyzed.

Results.

IPs in facilities with a QES system reported spending as much time on data management and education as IPs in hospitals with manual surveillance. Significant interaction was observed in CAUTI rates over time between groups of facilities with and without a QES system after controlling for device-utilization ratio, location within hospital, and licensed bed size (P< .01). QES hospitals showed a significant decline in CAUTI rates (P< .01); manual surveillance facilities showed no change in rates (P> .05).

Conclusions.

Over the 2-year period, a significant decline in CAUTI rates was observed in facilities with a QES system. This suggests that electronic systems may aid in reducing HAI rates. Additional data are needed to see whether these improvements and trends persist.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(2):105-111

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

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;122:160166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Klompas, M, Yokoe, DS. Automated surveillance of health care-associated infections. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:12681275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Hebden, JN, Wright, M-O, Fuss, EP, Standiford, HC. Leveraging surveillance technology to benefit the practice and profession of infection control. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:S7S11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act—Ch. 4, Health Care-Associated Infections, P.L. 331, No. 52 (2007).Google Scholar
5.Pennsylvania Department of Health. 2008 Report: Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI) in Pennsylvania Hospitals. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Health, 2010. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/healthcare_associated_infections/14234. Accessed February 1, 2011.Google Scholar
6.Pennsylvania Department of Health. 2009 Report: Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI) in Pennsylvania Hospitals. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Health, 2011. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/healthcare_associated_infections/14234. Accessed February 1, 2011.Google Scholar
7.Nabbing infections with technology. MSNBC.com. 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28436686/. Accessed March 11, 2011.Google Scholar
8.Cartographic Products Management Branch, Geography Division, US Census Bureau. Census 2000 Urbanized Areas. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/ua_metadata.html. Accessed April 23, 2010.Google Scholar
9.National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases and Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). NHSN Patient Safety Component Manual: Key Terms. Atlanta: CDC, 2010:16–1.Google Scholar
10.Grota, PG, Stone, PW, Jordan, S, Pogorzelska, M, Larson, E. Electronic surveillance systems in infection prevention: organizational support, program characteristics, and user satisfaction. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:509514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.McCracken, E. Technology's vital role in infection surveillance. Infect Control Today 2008. http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/articles/2008/01/technology-s-vital-role-in-infection-surveillance.aspx. Accessed November 15, 2010.Google Scholar
12.Septimus, E. Automated data mining surveillance: transforming the practice of infection control and prevention. Manag Infect Control 2005;5:5052.Google Scholar
13.Jackson, V, Nash, DB. MRSA: the private-sector response. Biotechnol Healthc 2008;5:5761.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Beaver, M. Electronic surveillance systems aid ICPs in outbreak investigation. Infect Control Today 2007. http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/articles/2007/10/electronic-surveillance-systems-aid-icps-in-outbr.aspx. Accessed November 15, 2010.Google Scholar

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.

Evaluation of Healthcare-Associated Infection Surveillance in Pennsylvania Hospitals
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.

Evaluation of Healthcare-Associated Infection Surveillance in Pennsylvania Hospitals
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.

Evaluation of Healthcare-Associated Infection Surveillance in Pennsylvania Hospitals
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *