Importance of the surveillance method: national prevalence studies on nosocomial infections and the limits of comparison.

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.

[1]  G. Ayliffe,et al.  Design and Execution , 1981, Daidalos at Work.

[2]  M. Schumacher,et al.  Prevalence of nosocomial infections in representative German hospitals. , 1998, The Journal of hospital infection.

[3]  M. Kelsey,et al.  The Second National Prevalence Survey of infection in hospitals--overview of the results. , 1996, The Journal of hospital infection.

[4]  J E Enstone,et al.  The Second National Prevalence Survey of infection in hospitals: methodology. , 1995, The Journal of hospital infection.

[5]  D. Fareed,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 programme. , 1993, Journal of Hospital Infection.

[6]  P. Aavitsland,et al.  [Prevalence of hospital infections in Norwegian somatic hospitals]. , 1993, Tidsskrift for Den Norske Laegeforening.

[7]  W J Martone,et al.  CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. , 1992, American journal of infection control.

[8]  T. Horan,et al.  Study of the definition of nosocomial infections (SDNI). Research Committee of the Association for Practitioners in Infection Control. , 1991, American journal of infection control.

[9]  L. Irwig,et al.  Predictors of surgical wound infection in Australia: a national study , 1988, The Medical journal of Australia.

[10]  J M Hughes,et al.  CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. , 1988, American journal of infection control.

[11]  S. Bolek,et al.  National prevalence survey of hospital-acquired infections in Czechoslovakia. , 1988, The Journal of hospital infection.

[12]  G. Ducel,et al.  An international survey of the prevalence of hospital-acquired infection. , 1988, The Journal of hospital infection.

[13]  G. Kegels,et al.  The national prevalence survey of nosocomial infections in Belgium, 1984. , 1987, The Journal of hospital infection.

[14]  M. Stazi,et al.  National prevalence survey of hospital-acquired infections in Italy, 1983. , 1986, The Journal of hospital infection.

[15]  A. Lystad,et al.  A prevalence survey of infections among hospitalized patients in Norway. , 1981, NIPH annals.

[16]  G. Ayliffe,et al.  Report on the National Survey of Infection in Hospitals, 1980. , 1981 .

[17]  O. B. Jepsen,et al.  Prevalence of nosocomial infection and infection control in Denmark. , 1980, The Journal of hospital infection.

[18]  D. Quade,et al.  The SENIC Project. Study on the efficacy of nosocomial infection control (SENIC Project). Summary of study design. , 1980, American journal of epidemiology.

[19]  B. Nyström,et al.  Prevalence of hospital-associated infections in five Swedish hospitals in November 1975. , 1978, Scandinavian journal of infectious diseases.