Development and Evaluation of a Structured Tool to Assess the Preventability of Hospital-Onset Bacteremia and Fungemia

Background: Hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia (HOB) may be a preventable hospital-acquired condition and a potential healthcare quality measure. We developed and evaluated a tool to assess the preventability of HOB and compared it to a more traditional consensus panel approach. Methods: A 10-member healthcare epidemiology expert panel independently rated the preventability of 82 hypothetical HOB case scenarios using a 6-point Likert scale (range, 1= “Definitively or Almost Certainly Preventable” to 6= “Definitely or Almost Certainly Not Preventable”). Ratings on the 6-point scale were collapsed into 3 categories: Preventable (1–2), Uncertain (3–4), or Not preventable (5–6). Consensus was defined as concurrence on the same category among ≥70% expert raters. Cases without consensus were deliberated via teleconference, web-based discussion, and a second round of rating. The proportion meeting consensus, overall and by predefined HOB source attribution, was calculated. A structured HOB preventability rating tool was developed to explicitly account for patient intrinsic and extrinsic healthcare-related risks (Fig. 1). Two additional physician reviewers independently applied this tool to adjudicate the same 82 case scenarios. The tool was iteratively revised based on reviewer feedback followed by repeat independent tool-based adjudication. Interrater reliability was evaluated using the Kappa statistic. Proportion of cases where tool-based preventability category matched expert consensus was calculated. Results: After expert panel round 1, consensus criteria were met for 29 cases (35%), which increased to 52 (63%) after round 2. Expert consensus was achieved more frequently for respiratory or surgical site infections than urinary tract and central-line–associated bloodstream infections (Fig. 2a). Most likely to be rated preventable were vascular catheter infections (64%) and contaminants (100%). For tool-based adjudication, following 2 rounds of rating with interim tool revisions, agreement between the 2 reviewers was 84% for cases overall (κ, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64–0.88]), and 87% for the 52 cases with expert consensus (κ, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65–0.94). Among cases with expert consensus, tool-based rating matched expert consensus in 40 of 52 (77%) and 39 of 52 (75%) cases for reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, respectively. The proportion of cases rated “uncertain“ was lower among tool-based adjudicated cases with reviewer agreement (15 of 69) than among cases with expert consensus (23 of 52) (Fig. 2b). Conclusions: Healthcare epidemiology experts hold varying perspectives on HOB preventability. Structured tool-based preventability rating had high interreviewer reliability, matched expert consensus in most cases, and rated fewer cases with uncertain preventability compared to expert consensus. This tool is a step toward standardized assessment of preventability in future HOB evaluations. Funding: None Disclosures: None