Use of surveillance data for prevention of healthcare-associated infection: Risk adjustment and reporting dilemmas

Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 359-363

  O'Neill, Eoghan ^a   Humphreys, Hilary ^a  

^a BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Healthcare associated infection; Postdischarge surveillance; Public reporting; Risk adjusted data; Surveillance

Indexed keywords

BLOODSTREAM INFECTION; CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE; COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; ESCHERICHIA COLI; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL INFECTION; HUMAN; INFECTION RISK; REVIEW; STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS;

CROSS INFECTION; DISEASE NOTIFICATION; HEALTH FACILITIES; HUMANS; RISK ADJUSTMENT; SENTINEL SURVEILLANCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 67651114114     PISSN: 09517375     EISSN: 14736527     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32832d04c0     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Pittet D, Donaldson L. Challenging the world: patient safety and healthcare-associated infection. Int J Qual Healthcare 2006; 18:4-8.
2. German RR, Lee LM, Horan JM, et al. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group. MMWR Recomm Rep 2001; 50:1-35; quiz CE1-7.
3. Arias KM. Mandatory reporting and pay for performance: healthcare infections in the limelight. AORN J 2008; 87:750-758.
4. Anderson DJ, Hartwig MG, Pappas T, et al. Surgical volume and the risk of surgical site infection in community hospitals: size matters. Ann Surg 2008; 247:343-349.
5. Kritsotakis EI, Dimitriadis I, Roumbelaki M, et al. Case-mix adjustment approach to benchmarking prevalence rates of nosocomial infection in hospitals in Cyprus and Greece. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29:685-692.
6. Anderson DJ, Chen LF, Sexton DJ, et al. Complex surgical site infections and the devilish details of risk adjustment: important implications for public reporting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29:941-946. This article describes a 30-month prospective study, involving 2257 SSIs, in order to validate the NNIS risk index as a tool to account for differences in case mix when reporting rates of complex SSI. The authors concluded that the NNIS was an appropriate method for risk stratification of complex SSIs.
7. Petherick ES, Dalton JE, Moore PJ, et al. Methods for identifying surgical wound infection after discharge from hospital: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 2006; 6:170.
8. Brummer S, Brandt C, Sohr D, et al. Does stratifying surgical site infection rates by the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance risk index influence the rank order of the hospitals in a surveillance system? J Hosp Infect 2008; 69:295-300.
9. Rowell KS, Turrentine FE, Hutter MM, et al. Use of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data as a catalyst for quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204:1293-1300.
10. Steinberg SM, Popa MR, Michalek JA, et al. Comparison of risk adjustment methodologies in surgical quality improvement. Surgery 2008; 144:662-667. A comparative study of two different risk adjustment reporting methodologies, which found significant differences in the reporting of comorbidities and outcomes between the two methods and highlights the need for a critical review of risk adjustment methodology before implementation.
11. Jen MH, Holmes AH, Bottle A, et al. Descriptive study of selected healthcare-associated infections using national Hospital Episode Statistics data 1996-2006 and comparison with mandatory reporting systems. J Hosp Infect 2008; 70:321-327.
12. Stone PW, Horan TC, Shih HC, et al. Comparisons of healthcare-associated infections identification using two mechanisms for public reporting. Am J Infect Control 2007; 35:145-149.
13. Phillips P, Cortina-Borja M, Millar M, et al. Risk-adjusted surveillance of hospital-acquired infections in neonatal intensive care units: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2008; 70:203-211. Authors reviewed nine studies, which performed risk-adjusted surveillance of hospital-acquired infections in neonatal ICUs and revealed the need for consistency in case definitions and reporting mechanisms. The authors advocate the use of electronic clinical record systems to accelerate data collection.
14. Morton AP, Clements AC, Doidge SR, et al. Surveillance of healthcare-acquired infections in Queensland, Australia: data and lessons from the first 5 years. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29:695-701. Describes a 5-year review of healthcare-acquired infection surveillance in Australia. Surveillance data were compared across 23 hospitals and the authors found significant variation in reporting across different hospitals, thus highlighting the difficulties in comparisons between hospitals without appropriate risk adjustment.
15. Richards MJ, Russo PL. Surveillance of hospital-acquired infections in Australia - one nation, many states. J Hosp Infect 2007; 65 (Suppl 2):174-181. Study reviewing surveillance methods across states in Australia that demonstrated nicely the wide variation in surveillance methods across different states and the need for international risk-adjusted surveillance methods.
16. Marcel JP, Alfa M, Baquero F, et al. Healthcare-associated infections: think globally, act locally. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14:895-907.
17. Millar M, Coast J, Ashcroft R. Are meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection targets fair to those with other types of healthcare-associated infection or cost-effective? J Hosp Infect 2008; 69:1-5.
18. Meier BM, Stone PW, Gebbie KM. Public health law for the collection and reporting of healthcare-associated infections. Am J Infect Control 2008; 36:537-551.
19. Isaac T, Jha AK. Are patient safety indicators related to widely used measures of hospital quality? J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23:1373-1378.
20. Stevenson KB, Khan Y, Dickman J, et al. Administrative coding data, compared with CDC/NHSN criteria, are poor indicators of healthcare-associated infections. Am J Infect Control 2008; 36:155-164. Retrospective review at an academic medical center comparing patients classified as having healthcare-associated infection by CDC surveillance methods and by ICD-9-CM coding. The study revealed that administrative coding was a poor tool for use as an infection control surveillance method.
21. Fung CH, Lim YW, Mattke S, et al. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148:111-123. Large systematic review of 45 studies assessing the effects of public release of performance data, which revealed that publicly releasing data can stimulate improvement at a hospital level, but the effects on the public use of the healthcare system remain uncertain. The authors argue for the need for designing an appropriate public reporting system.
22. Edmond MB, Bearman GM. Mandatory public reporting in the USA: an example to follow? J Hosp Infect 2007; 65 (Suppl 2):182-188.
23. Mazor KM, Dodd KS, Kunches L. Communicating hospital infection data to the public: a study of consumer responses and preferences. Am J Med Qual 2009; 24:108-115.
24. Rothberg MB, Morsi E, Benjamin EM, et al. Choosing the best hospital: the limitations of public quality reporting. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008; 27:1680-1687.
25. Humphreys H, Cunney R. Performance indicators and the public reporting of healthcare-associated infection rates. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14:892-894.
26. Klompas M, Platt R. Ventilator-associated pneumonia - the wrong quality measure for benchmarking. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:803-805.