Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T15:18:01.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surveillance Strategies: A Primer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Elias Abrutyn  and
George H. Talbot
Elias Abrutyn*
Affiliation:
section of Infectious Diseases, Medicine Service, Veterans Administration Hospital, Medical College of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
George H. Talbot
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Section and the Clinical Epidemiology Unit of the General Medicine Section, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
*
Section of Infectious Diseases, Medicine Service, Veteran's Administration Hospital, Medical College of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Centers for Disease Control's Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) showed that infection surveillance and control activities are associated with a decrease in nosocomial infection rates. Moreover, the intensity of activity correlated with the magnitude of the fall in infection rates. These results, plus the guidelines of regulatory agencies, mandate that infection control programs conduct surveillance activities. However, absolute standards for the content and nature of surveillance programs have not been established, and many descriptions of different types of surveillance programs are available. In this primer, we describe the considerations involved in development of a surveillance program with emphasis on issues concerning data collection.

Langmuir considers surveillance when applied to disease as meaning the collection of data, the analysis of those data, and the distribution of the resulting information to those needing to know. The definition implies that surveillance is observational and that surveillance activities should be clearly separated from other related activities such as control measures. The latter activities, including their initiation, approval, and funding, are administrative matters underpinned by a scientific base that are undertaken by the recipients of the surveillance data and their analyses. They should be clearly separated from surveillance activities per se. There is also the implication that action results from surveillance; surveillance without action should be abandoned.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 8 , Issue 11 , November 1987 , pp. 459 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1987

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.)

References

1. 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
2. Langmuir, AD: The surveillance of communicable diseases of national importance. New Engl J Med 1963;268:182–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Langmuir, AD: Surveillance as a control system—panel: Statement of panelist. Proceedings of the International Conference on Nosocomial Infections, August 3-6. 1970. American Hospital Association, 1971, p 294.Google Scholar
4. Centers for Disease Control: Outline for surveillance and control of nosocomial infections. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Public Health Service, revised June 1972.Google Scholar
5. Thompson, R: Surveillance and reporting of nosocomial infections, in Wenzel, RP (ed): Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. Baltimore, Williams and Wilkins, 1987.Google Scholar
6. Eickhoff, TC: Nosocomial infections—A 1980 view: Progress, priorities and prognosis. Am J Med 1981;70:381–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Haley, RW: Surveillance by objective: A new priority-directed approach to the control of nosocomial infections. Am J Infect Control 1985;13:78–89.Google Scholar
8. Hofherr, L: Nosocomial infection surveillance techniques—A review. Am J Infect Control 1979;7:12–15.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Mulholland, S, Creed, J, Dierauf, LA, et al: Analysis and significance of nosocomial infection rates. Ann Surg 1974;827–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Haley, RW, Schaberg, DR, McClish, DK, et al: The accuracy of retrospective chart review in measuring nosocomial infection rates. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:516–533.Google Scholar
11. Wenzel, RP, Osterman, CA, Hunting, KJ, et al: Hospital-acquired infections 1. Surveillance in a university hospital. Am J Epidemiol 1976;103:251–260.Google Scholar
12. Gross, PA, Beaugard, A, Van Antwerpen, C: Surveillance for nosocomial infections: Can the sources of data be reduced? Infect Control 1980;1:233–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Blake, S, Cheatle, E, Mack, B: Surveillance: Retrospective versus prospective. Am J Infect Control 1980;8:75–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Birnbaum, D, King, LA: Disadvantages of infection surveillance by medical record chart review. Am J Infect Control 1981;9:15–17.Google Scholar
15. Lynch, P, Jackson, MM: Monitoring: Surveillance for nosocomial infections and uses for assessing quality of care. Am J Infect Control 1985;13:161–173.Google Scholar
16. Centers for Disease Control: Guidelines for Hospital Environmental Control. Infect Control 1981;2:131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. McGowan, JE Jr: Environmental factors in nosocomial infection—A selective focus. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:760–769.Google Scholar
18. Haley, RW, Aber, RC, Bennett, JV: Surveillance of nosocomial infections, in Bennett, JV, Brachman, PS (eds): Hospital Infections, ed 2. 1986. Boston/Toronto, Little Brown & Co, pp 51–71.Google Scholar
19. Crossley, K, Johnson, J, Mudge, R, et al: An evaluation of autopsy review as a technique for infection control: A procedure of questionable value. Infect Control 1983;4:29–30.Google Scholar
20. Chelgren, G, LaForce, FM: Limited, periodic surveillance proves practical and effective. Hospitals, JAHA 1978;52:151–154.Google Scholar
21. Graham, DR, Clegg, HW, Anderson, RL, et al: Gentamicin treatment associated with later nosocomial gentamicin-resistant Serratia marcescens infections. Infect Control 1981;2:31–37.Google Scholar
22. Wenzel, RP, Osterman, CA, Donowitz, LG, et al: Identification of procedure-related nosocomial infections in high-risk patients. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:701–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Landry, SL, Donowitz, LG, Wenzel, RP: Hospital-wide surveillance: Perspective for the practitioner. Am J Infect Control 1982;10:66–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Latham, EK, Standfast, SJ, Baltch, AL, et al: The prevalence survey as an infection surveillance method in an acute and long-term care institution. Am J Infect Control 1981;9:76–81.Google Scholar
25. Rhame, FS, Sudderth, WD: Incidence and prevalence as used in the analysis of the occurrence of nosocomial infections. Am J Epidemiol 1981;113:1–11.Google Scholar
26. Freeman, J, McGowan, JE Jr: Methodologic issues in hospital epidemiology. II. Time and accuracy in estimation. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:668–677.Google Scholar
27. Freeman, J, McGowan, JE Jr: Methodologic issues in hospital epidemiology. I. Rates, case-finding, and interpretation. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:658–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Tager, IB, Ginsberg, MB, Simchen, E, et al: Rationale and methods for a statewide, prospective surveillance system for the identification and prevention of nosocomial infections. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:683–693.Google Scholar
29. Friedman, C, Richter, D, Skylis, T, et al: Process surveillance: Auditing infection control policies and procedures. Am J Infect Control 1984;12:228–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Laxson, FB, Blaser, MJ, Parkhurst, SM: Surveillance for the detection of nosocomial infections and the potential for nosocomial outbreaks. 1. Microbiology culture surveillance is an effective method of detecting nosocomial infection. Am J Infect Control 1984;12:318–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Evans, RS, Larsen, RA, Burke, JP, et al: Computer surveillance of hospital-acquired infections and antibiotic use. JAMA 1986;256:1007–1011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Coslel, EE, Mitchell, S, Kaiser, AB: Abbreviated surveillance of nosocomial urinary tract infections. A new approach. Infect Control 1985;6:11–13.Google Scholar
33. Holzman, RS, Florman, AL, Toharsky, B: The clinical usefulness of an ongoing bacteremia surveillance program. Am J Med Sci 1977;274:13–19.Google Scholar
34. Rose, R, Hunting, KJ, Townsend, TR, et al: Morbidity/mortality and economics of hospital-acquired blood stream infections: A controlled study. South Med J 1977;70:1267–1269.Google Scholar
35. Centers for Disease Control: Nosocomial infection surveillance, 1984. MMWR 1986;35(No. 1SS):17SS–29SS.Google Scholar
36. Warner, P, Parker, SE, Clearwater, KM: A preliminary survey of the types, incidence and recording of hospital infection. Can Med Assoc J 1961;85:915–932.Google Scholar
37. McGuckin, MB, Abrutyn, E: A surveillance method of early detection of nosocomial outbreaks. Am J Infect Control 1979;18–21.Google ScholarPubMed
38. Parkhurst, SM, Blaser, MJ, Laxson, LB, et al: Surveillance for the detection of nosocomial infections and the potential for nosocomial outbreaks II. Development of a laboratory-based system. Am J Infect Control 1985;13:7–15.Google Scholar
39. Birnbaum, D: Analysis of hospital infection surveillance data. Infect Control 1984;5:332–338.Google Scholar
40. Schifman, RB, Palmer, RA: Surveillance of nosocomial infections by computer analysis of positive culture rales. J Clin Microbiol 1985;21:493–495.Google Scholar
41. Childress, JA, Childress, JD: Statistical test for possible infection outbreaks. Infect Control 1981;2:247–249.Google Scholar