Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-shngb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T05:35:39.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Importance of the Surveillance Method: National Prevalence Studies on Nosocomial Infections and the Limits of Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Petra Gastmeier ,
Günter Kampf ,
Nicoletta Wischnewski ,
Martin Schumacher ,
Franz Daschner  and
Henning Rüden
Petra Gastmeier*
Affiliation:
Institute of Hygiene, Free University, Berlin, Germany
Günter Kampf
Affiliation:
Institute of Hygiene, Free University, Berlin, Germany
Nicoletta Wischnewski
Affiliation:
Institute of Hygiene, Free University, Berlin, Germany
Martin Schumacher
Affiliation:
Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, Germany
Franz Daschner
Affiliation:
Institute of Environmental Medicine and Hospital Epidemiology, Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, Germany
Henning Rüden
Affiliation:
Institute of Hygiene, Free University, Berlin, Germany
*
Institut für Hygiene, Freie Universität Berlin, Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, D 13, 353 Berlin, Germany; e-mail, pgastmei@charite.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To demonstrate the limits of comparison of national prevalence rates of nosocomial infections.

Design and Setting:

Critical analysis of prevalence rates and methods of the Nosocomial Infections in Germany (NIDEP) study and other prevalence surveys with particular attention to the selection of patients, the qualification and training of the investigators, and the methods of identifying nosocomial infections.

Results:

The lowest prevalence rate was found in Germany (3.5 %), the highest in Belgium (9.3 %). These differences may not be accurate, because variations in methods allow for differing explanations.

Conclusions:

Because of numerous methodological factors, comparison of infection rates between countries should be avoided. In contrast to other prevalence studies, the methodology of the German-NIDEP study permits registration of only certain infections, which is the main reason for the low rate.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 19 , Issue 9 , September 1998 , pp. 661 - 667
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1998 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Mayon-White, RT, Ducel, G, Kereselidze, T, Tikomirov, E. An international survey of the prevalence of hospital-acquired infection. J Hosp Infect 1988;11(suppl A):43–48.Google Scholar
2. Bernander, S, Hambraeus, A, Myrbäck, K-E, Nyström, B, Sundelof, B. Prevalence of hospital-associated infections in five Swedish hospitals in November 1975. Scand J Infect Dis 1978;10:66–70.Google Scholar
3. Jepsen, OB, Mortensen, N. Prevalence of nosocomial infection and infection control in Denmark. J Hosp Infect 1980;1:237–244.Google Scholar
4. Hovig, B, Lystad, A, Opsjon, H. A prevalence survey of infections among hospitalized patients in Norway. National Institute of Public Health Annals 1981;4:49–60.Google Scholar
5. Meers, PD, Ayliffe, GAJ, Emmerson, AM, Leigh, DA, Mayon-White, T, Mackintosh, CA, et al. Report on the national survey of infection in hospitals. J Hosp Infect 1981;2(suppl):1–51.Google Scholar
6. Moro, ML, Stazi, MA, Marasca, G, Greco, D, Zampieri, A. National prevalence survey of hospital-acquired infections in Italy, 1983. J Hosp Infect 1986;8:72–85.Google Scholar
7. Mertens, R, Kegels, G, Stroobant, A, Reybrouck, G, Lamotte, JM, Potvliege, C, et al. The national prevalence survey of nosocomial infections in Belgium, 1984. J Hosp Infect 1987;9:219–229.Google Scholar
8. Srámová, H, Bartonová, A, Bolek, S, Krecmerová, M, Subertová, V. National prevalence survey of hospital-acquired infections in Czechoslovakia. J Hosp Infect 1988;11:328–334.Google Scholar
9. EPINE Working Group. Prevalence of hospital-acquired infections in Spain. J Hosp Infect 1992;20:1–13.Google Scholar
10. Quenon, J-L, Gottot, S, Duneton, P, Carlet, B, Regnier, B, Deshons, J-P, et al. First national prevalence survey of hospital acquired infections in France. Presented at the 32nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 10 1992; Anaheim CA. Abstract.Google Scholar
11. Emmerson, AM, Enstone, JE, Griffin, M, Kelsey, MC, Smyth, ETM. The second national prevalence survey of infection in hospitals—overview of the results. J Hosp Infect 1996;32:175–190.Google Scholar
12. Emmerson, AM, Enstone, JE, Kelsey, MC. The second national prevalence survey of infection in hospitals: methodology. J Hosp Infect 1995;30:7–29.Google Scholar
13. Stormark, M, Aavitsland, P, Lystad, A. Prevalence of hospital infections in Norwegian somatic hospitals. Tidsskr Nor Lœgeforen 1993;113:173–177.Google Scholar
14. Vaqué, J, Rosselló, J, Trilla, A, Monge, V, Garcia-Caballero, J, Arribas, JL, et al. Nosocomial infections in Spain: results of five nationwide serial prevalence surveys (EPINE Project, 1990 to 1994). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:293–297.Google Scholar
15. McLaws, MLM, Irwig, LM, Mock, P, Berry, G, Gold, J. Predictors of surgical wound infections in Australia: a national study. Med J Aust 1988;149:591–595.Google Scholar
16. Danchaivijitr, S, Chokloikaew, S. A national prevalence study on nosocomial infections 1988. J Med Assoc Thai 1989;72(suppl):1–6.Google Scholar
17. Jepsen, OB, Jensen, LP, Zimakoff, J, Friis, H, Bissoonauthsing, CN, Kasenally, AT, et al. Prevalence of infections and use of antibiotics among hospitalized patients in Mauritius. A nationwide survey for the planning of a national infection control program. J Hosp Infect 1993;25:271–278.Google Scholar
18. Gastmeier, P, Kampf, G, Wischnewski, N, Hauer, T, Schulgen, G, Schumacher, M, et al. Prevalence of nosocomial infections in representative German hospitals. J Hosp Infect 1998;38:37–49.Google Scholar
19. Garner, JS, Emori, WR, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128–140.Google Scholar
20. Larson, E, Horan, T, Cooper, B, Kotilainen, HR, Landry, S, Terry, B. Study of the definition of nosocomial infections. Am J Infect Control 1991;19:259–267.Google Scholar
21. Haley, RW, Quade, DH, Freemann, HE, the CDC SENIC Planning Committee. Study on the efficacy of nosocomial infection control (SENIC project): summary of the study design. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:472–485.Google Scholar
22. Haley, RW, Morgan, WM, Culver, DH, Schaberg, DR. Differences in nosocomial infection rates by type of hospital: the influence of patient mix and diagnostic medical practices. Presented at the 22nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 09 1980; Miami, FL. Abstract.Google Scholar
23. Garner, JS, Bennett, JV, Scheckler, WE, Maki, DG, Brachman, PS. Surveillance of nosocomial infections. In: Brachman, PS, Eickhoff, TC, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Nosocomial Infections. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Association; 1971:277–281.Google Scholar
24. Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Martone, WJ, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:606–608.Google Scholar
25. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system. Nosocomial infection rates for interhospital comparison: limitations and possible solutions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12:609–621.Google Scholar