Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T23:52:06.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of NHSN-Defined Central Venous Catheter Day Counts with a Method that Accounts for Concurrent Catheters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2015

Thomas R. Talbot ,
James G. Johnson ,
Theodore Anders  and
Rachel M. Hayes
Thomas R. Talbot*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA Department of Infection Prevention, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
James G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA Department of Infection Prevention, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Theodore Anders
Affiliation:
Informatics Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Rachel M. Hayes
Affiliation:
Department of Section of Surgical Sciences, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
*
Address correspondence to Thomas R. Talbot, MD, MPH, A2200 Medical Center North, 1161 21st Ave South, Nashville, TN 37232 (tom.talbot@vanderbilt.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Central venous catheter (CVC) day definitions do not consider concurrent CVCs. We examined traditional CVC day counts and resultant central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates with a CVC day definition that included concurrent CVCs. Accounting for concurrent CVCs increased device day counts by 8.5% but only mildly impacted CLABSI rates.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36(1): 107–109

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 107 - 109
Copyright
© 2015 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

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.)

Footnotes

Presented at the IDWeek Scientific Meeting, San Francisco, CA, October 4, 2013 (abstract # 1072).

References

REFERENCES

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI) Event. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/4PSC_CLABScurrent.pdf. 2014. Accessed on May 23, 2014.Google Scholar
2.Almuneef, MA, Memish, ZA, Balkhy, HH, Hijazi, O, Cunningham, G, Francis, C. Rate, risk factors and outcomes of catheter-related bloodstream infection in a paediatric intensive care unit in Saudi Arabia. J Hosp Infect 2006;62:207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Peng, S, Lu, Y. Clinical epidemiology of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections in an intensive care unit in China. J Crit Care 2013;28:277–283.Google Scholar
4.Scheithauer, S, Hafner, H, Schroder, J, et al. Simultaneous placement of multiple central lines increases central line-associated bloodstream infection rates. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:113–117.Google Scholar
5.Legriel, S, Mongardon, N, Troche, G, Bruneel, F, Bedos, JP. Catheter-related colonization or infection in critically ill patients: is the number of simultaneous catheters a risk factor? Am J Infect Control 2011;39:83–85.Google Scholar
6.Aslakson, RA, Romig, M, Galvagno, SM, et al. Effect of accounting for multiple concurrent catheters on central line-associated bloodstream infection rates: practical data supporting a theoretical concern. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:121–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Thompson, ND, Edwards, JR, Bamberg, W, et al. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling to estimate central line-days: simplification of the National Healthcare Safety Network surveillance methods. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:221–228.Google Scholar