Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:12:13.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surveillance, Reporting, Automation, and Interventional Epidemiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

John P. Burke
John P. Burke*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases, LDS Hospital, and the Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
*
LDS Hospital Medical Office Building, Suite 204, 370-9th Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84103
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorials
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 10 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2003

References

1.Gaynes, RP, Richards, C, Edwards, J, et al. Feeding back surveillance data to prevent hospital-acquired infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:295–298.Google Scholar
2.Eickhoff, TC. General comments on the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC Project). Am J Epidemiol 1980:111:465–469.Google Scholar
3.Haley, RW, Quade, D, Freeman, HE, et al. Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC Project): summary of study design. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:472–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Haley, RW, Shachtman, RH. The emergence of infection surveillance and control programs in US hospitals: an assessment, 1976. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:574–591.Google Scholar
5.Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:182–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Leape, LL. Reporting of adverse events. N Engl J Med 2002:347:1633–1638.Google Scholar
7.Hierholzer, WJ. Health care data, the epidemiologist's sand: comments on the quantity and quality of data. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):3B–21S-3B-26S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monitoring hospital-acquired infections to promote patient safety: United States, 1990-1999. MMWR 2000;49:149–153.Google Scholar
9.Gaunt, PN, Phillips, I. Computers and hospital infection. J Hosp Infect 1987;9:106–109.Google Scholar
10.Brown, SM, Benneyan, JC, Theobald, DA, et al. Use of binary cumulative sums and moving averages in nosocomial infection cluster detection. Emerg Infect Dis 2002. Available at www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8nol2/01-0514.htm.Google Scholar
11.Institute of Medicine. To Err Is Human. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.Google Scholar
12.Fridkin, SK, Steward, CD, Edwards, JR, et al. Surveillance of antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in United States hospitals: Project ICARE phase 2. Clin Infect Dis 1999;29:245–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Obasanjo, O, Perl, T. Cost-benefit and effectiveness of nosocomial surveillance methods. Curr Clin Top Infect Dis 2001:21:391–406.Google Scholar
14.Institute of Medicine. The Computer-Based Patient Record: An Essential Technology for Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991.Google Scholar
15.Benson, T. Why general practitioners use computers and hospital doctors do not: Part 1. Incentives; Part 2. Scalability. BMJ 2002;325:1086–1093.Google Scholar
16.Best, WR, Khuri, SF, Phelan, M, et al. Identifying patient preoperative risk factors and postoperative adverse events in administrative databases: results from the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 2002;194:257–266.Google Scholar
17.Burke, JP, Pestotnik, SL. Antibiotic resistance: the combat zone. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1998;11:441–443.Google Scholar
18.Calfee, DP, Farr, BM. Infection control and cost control in the era of managed care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:407–410.Google Scholar
19.Langmuir, AD. Evolution of the concept of surveillance in the United States. Proc R Soc Med 1971;64:681–684.Google Scholar
20.Platt, R. Progress in surgical-site infection surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:361–363.Google Scholar
21.Eickhoff, TC. Nosocomial infections—a 1980 view: progress, priorities and prognosis. Am J Med 1981;70:381–388.Google Scholar
22.Bouam, S, Girou, E, Brun-Buisson, C, Karadimas, H, Lepage, E. An intranet-based automated system for the surveillance of nosocomial infections: prospective validation compared with physicians' self-reports. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:51–55.Google Scholar
23.Jenders, RA, Shah, A. Challenges in using the Arden syntax for computer-based nosocomial infection surveillance. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002;9(suppl 6):S98–S101.Google Scholar
24.Peterson, LR, Brossette, SE. Hunting health care-associated infections from the clinical microbiology laboratory: passive, active, and virtual surveillance. J Clin Microbiol 2002;40:14.Google Scholar
25.Brossette, SE, Sprague, AP, Hardin, JM, Waites, KB, Jones, WT, Moser, SA. Association rules and data mining in hospital infection control and public health surveillance. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5:373–381.Google Scholar
26.Ford-Jones, EL, Mindorff, CM, Pollock, E, et al. Evaluation of a new method of detection of nosocomial infection in the pediatric intensive care unit: the infection control sentinel sheet system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1989;10:515–520.Google Scholar