Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
  4. Volume 26
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:
Topic: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 26 - September 2005

Contents

Page 1 of 10

Editorial

  • Double, Double, Toil and Trouble Infections Still Spreading in Long-Term–Care Facilities
  • Suzanne F. Bradley
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 227-230
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Announcement

Editorial

  • Air, Hair, Knees, Nose
  • James T. Lee
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 900-902
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Letters to the Editor

Editorial

  • Clostridium difficile: Responding to a New Threat From an Old Enemy
  • L. Clifford McDonald
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 672-675
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • The Next Battleground for Patient Safety: Influenza Immunization of Healthcare Workers
  • Christopher J. Hoffmann, Trish M. Perl
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 850-851
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Letters to the Editor

  • Contamination of Guidewires During Insertion of Central Venous Catheters in an Intensive Care Setting
  • Susanah Palmer, Thomas Solano
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 506-507
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Other

Editorial

  • Healthcare Behaviors and Risky Business First, Do No Harm
  • David K. Henderson
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 739-744
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Letters to the Editor

Editorial

  • Of Models and Methods: Our Analytic Armamentarium Applied to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 594-597
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Letter to the Editor

  • Caution Should Be Exercised When Using the Standardized Infection Ratio
  • Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez, Javier Llorca
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 8-9
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Original Articles

  • Standardized Infection Surveillance in Long-Term Care Interfacility Comparisons From a Regional Cohort of Facilities
  • Kurt B. Stevenson, James Moore, Holly Colwell, Barbara Sleeper
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 231-238
  • View abstract
    Objectives:

    To measure infection rates in a regional cohort of long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) using standard surveillance methods and to analyze different methods for interfacility comparisons.

    Setting:

    Seventeen LTCFs in Idaho.

    Design:

    Prospective, active surveillance for LTCF-acquired infections using standard definitions and case-finding methods was conducted from July 2001 to June 2002. All surveillance data were combined and individual facility performance was compared with the aggregate employing a variety of statistical and graphic methods.

    Results:

    The surveillance data set consisted of 472,019 resident-days of care with 1,717 total infections for a pooled mean rate of 3.64 infections per 1,000 resident-days. Specific infections included respiratory (828; rate, 1.75), skin and soft tissue (520; rate, 1.10), urinary tract (282; rate, 0.60), gastrointestinal (77; rate, 0.16), unexplained febrile illnesses (6; rate, 0.01), and bloodstream (4; rate, 0.01). Initially, methods adopted from the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System were used comparing individual rates with pooled means and percentiles of distribution. A more sensitive method appeared to be detecting statistically significant deviations (based on chi-square analysis) of the individual facility rates from the aggregate of all other facilities. One promising method employed statistical process control charts (U charts) adjusted to compare individual rates with aggregate monthly rates, providing simultaneous visual and statistical comparisons. Small multiples graphs were useful in providing images valid for rapid concurrent comparison of all facilities.

    Conclusion:

    Interfacility comparisons have been demonstrated to be valuable for hospital infection control programs, but have not been studied extensively in LTCFs.

Letters to the Editor

Original Articles

  • Use of Stochastic Epidemic Modeling to Quantify Transmission Rates of Colonization With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in an Intensive Care Unit
  • Marie Forrester, Anthony N. Pettitt
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 598-606
  • View abstract
    Objective:

    To consider statistical methods for estimating transmission rates for colonization of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in an intensive care unit (ICU) from three different sources: background contamination, non-isolated patients, and isolated patients.

    Methods:

    We developed statistical methods that allowed for the analysis of interval-censored, routine surveillance data and extended the general epidemic model for the flow of patients through the ICU.

    Results:

    Within this ICU, the rate of transmission to susceptible patients from a background source of MRSA (0.0092 case per day; 95% confidence interval [CI95], 0.0062–0.0126) is approximately double the rate of transmission from a non-isolated patient (0.0052 case per day; CI95, 0.0013–0.0096) and six times the rate of transmission from an isolated patient (0.0015 case per day; CI95, 0.0001–0.0043). We used the methodology to investigate whether transmission rates vary with workload.

    Conclusion:

    Our methodology has general application to infection by and transmission of pathogens in a hospital setting and is appropriate for quantifying the effect of infection control interventions. (Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:598-606)

Editorial

  • Infections in Long-Term-Care Facilities: Screen or Clean?
  • Chesley L. Richards, Jr.
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2016, pp. 800-801
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Letters to the Editor

correction

Letters to the Editor

Page 1 of 10