Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 27(9): 926-30, 2006 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16941317

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania mandated hospitals to report healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The increased workload led our Infection Control staff to collaborate with Atlas, a group of chart abstractors. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess our first year of experience with mandatory reporting of HAIs--specifically, to assess Atlas' contribution to surveillance. DESIGN: Cases were selected if they had 1 or more of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes designated by Pennsylvania as a possible HAI. After training by the Infection Control staff, Atlas applied National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) system case definitions for catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and surgical site infections (SSIs), and they applied NNIS chest imaging criteria to eliminate cases that were not ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). To assess Atlas' performance, Infection Control staff conducted a parallel review. RESULTS: For discharges from the hospital during the fourth quarter of 2004, a total of 410 UTIs, 59 SSIs, and 56 VAPs were identified on the basis of state-designated ICD-9-CM codes; review by Atlas/Infection Control determined that 15%, 15%, and 16% of cases met case definitions, respectively. Of cases reviewed by both Infection Control and Atlas, 87% of the assessments made by Atlas were correct for UTI, and 96% were correct for SSI. For VAP, Infection Control concluded that 39% of cases could be ruled out on the basis of chest imaging criteria; Atlas correctly dismissed these 12 cases but incorrectly dismissed an additional 6 (error, 19%). Surveillance was not timely: 1-2 months elapsed between the time of HAI onset and the earliest case review. CONCLUSIONS: With ongoing training by Infection Control, Atlas successfully demonstrated a role in retrospective HAI surveillance. However, despite a major effort to comply with mandates, time lags and other design limitations rendered the data of low utility for Infection Control. States that are planning HAI-reporting programs should standardize an efficient surveillance methodology that yields data capable of guiding interventions to prevent HAI.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Transmisibles/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Notificación Obligatoria , Vigilancia de la Población/métodos , Cateterismo/efectos adversos , Enfermedades Transmisibles/clasificación , Infección Hospitalaria/clasificación , Humanos , Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades , Pennsylvania/epidemiología , Neumonía/clasificación , Neumonía/epidemiología , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/clasificación , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/epidemiología , Infecciones Urinarias/clasificación , Infecciones Urinarias/epidemiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA