Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Evaluation of Healthcare-Associated Infection Surveillance in Pennsylvania Hospitals

  • Aimee J. Palumbo (a1) (a2), P. Ann Loveless (a1), Mària E. Moll (a1) and Stephen Ostroff (a1)

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

Copyright

Corresponding author

625 Forster Street, H&W Building, Room 933, Harrisburg, PA 17120 (aipalumbo@pa.gov)

References

Hide All
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.
2.Klompas, M, Yokoe, DS. Automated surveillance of health care-associated infections. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:12681275.
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.
4. Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act—Ch. 4, Health Care-Associated Infections, P.L. 331, No. 52 (2007).
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.
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.
7.Nabbing infections with technology. MSNBC.com. 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28436686/. Accessed March 11, 2011.
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.
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.
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.
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.
12.Septimus, E. Automated data mining surveillance: transforming the practice of infection control and prevention. Manag Infect Control 2005;5:5052.
13.Jackson, V, Nash, DB. MRSA: the private-sector response. Biotechnol Healthc 2008;5:5761.
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.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed