How many nosocomial infections are missed if identification is restricted to patients with either microbiology reports or antibiotic administration?

OBJECTIVE To investigate how many nosocomial infections would be missed if surveillance activities were restricted to patients having either microbiology reports or antibiotic administration. DESIGN Analysis of data from a large prevalence study on nosocomial infections (Nosocomial Infections in Germany-Surveillance and Prevention). SETTING A total of 14,966 patients were investigated in medical, surgical, obstetric-gynecologic, and intensive-care units of 72 German hospitals representatively selected according to size. Five hundred eighteen patients (3.5%) had at least one nosocomial infection. Microbiology reports were available for 56.6% of these patients on the prevalence day, and 86.3% received antibiotics. RESULTS Only 31 nosocomially infected patients (6%) would have been missed by using either microbiology reports or antibiotic treatment as an indicator. These indicators of nosocomial infections had a high diagnostic sensitivity for nosocomial pneumonia (98.8%), urinary tract infections (96.3%), and primary bloodstream infections (95.3%), but a lower sensitivity for wound infections (85.4%). Thus, 97.4% of all nosocomial infections were found with this method in intensive-care units and 96.1% in medicine units, but only 89.7% in surgical departments. In 9 (12.5%) of 72 hospitals, the overall sensitivity would have been <80% using a combination of the two indicators. For this reason, the situation in one's own hospital should be checked before using this method. CONCLUSIONS After checking the situation in one's own hospital, the "either-or" approach using the two indicators "microbiology report" and "antibiotic administration" can be recommended as a time-saving measure to diagnose pneumonia, urinary tract, and primary bloodstream infections. For wound infections, additional information obtained by changing dressings or participating in ward rounds is necessary to achieve satisfactory sensitivity in the surveillance of nosocomial infections. Of course, it is necessary that the surveillance staff discard all false positives to ensure a satisfactory specificity.

[1]  M. Schumacher,et al.  Importance of the surveillance method: national prevalence studies on nosocomial infections and the limits of comparison. , 1998 .

[2]  P. Gross,et al.  Surveillance for Nosocomial Infections: Can the Sources of Data Be Reduced? , 1980, Infection Control.

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

[4]  R. Wenzel,et al.  NOSOCOMIAL INFECTIONS: VALIDATION OF SURVEILLANCE AND COMPUTER MODELING TO IDENTIFY PAT AT RISK , 1990 .

[5]  C L Bartlett,et al.  An evaluation of surveillance methods for detecting infections in hospital inpatients. , 1993, The Journal of hospital infection.

[6]  Richard Platt,et al.  Electronic surveillance of antibiotic exposure and coded discharge diagnoses as indicators of postoperative infection and other quality assurance measures. , 1993 .

[7]  R. Gaynes,et al.  CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. , 1992, Infection control and hospital epidemiology.

[8]  J. Bennett,et al.  Surveillance of nosocomial infections by antibiotic monitoring. , 1979, JAMA.

[9]  B. Yangco,et al.  CDC definitions for nosocomial infections. , 1989, American journal of infection control.

[10]  R. Wenzel,et al.  Hospital-acquired infections. I. Surveillance in a university hospital. , 1976, American journal of epidemiology.

[11]  M. Schumacher,et al.  Experience With Two Validation Methods in a Prevalence Survey on Nosocomial Infections , 1998, Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology.

[12]  R. Haley,et al.  The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. , 1985, American journal of epidemiology.

[13]  R M Gardner,et al.  Computer surveillance of hospital-acquired infections and antibiotic use. , 1986, JAMA.

[14]  E L Teare,et al.  The development of an infection control link-nurse programme in a district general hospital. , 1996, The Journal of hospital infection.

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

[16]  R. Platt,et al.  Surveillance for Surgical Site Infections: The Uses of Antibiotic Exposure , 1994, Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology.

[17]  M. Blaser,et al.  Surveillance for the detection of nosocomial infections and the potential for nosocomial outbreaks. I. Microbiology culture surveillance is an effective method of detecting nosocomial infection. , 1984, American journal of infection control.