Electronic surveillance and using administrative data to identify healthcare associated infections

Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 394-399

  Gastmeier, Petra ^a   Behnke, Michael ^a  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

administrative data; electronic; surveillance

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ALGORITHM; AUTOMATION; CODING; DATA BASE; ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE; HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATED INFECTION; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; HUMAN; PARAMETERS; REVIEW; BACTEREMIA; CROSS INFECTION; FACTUAL DATABASE; HEALTH SURVEY; PROCEDURES; SURGICAL INFECTION;

ALGORITHMS; BACTEREMIA; CROSS INFECTION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS; HUMANS; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION;

EID: 84973299440     PISSN: 09517375     EISSN: 14736527     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000282     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Schröder C, Schwab F, Behnke M, et al. Epidemiology of healthcare associated infections in Germany: nearly 20 years of surveillance. Int J Med Mikro 2015; 305:799-806.
2. Russo P, Barnett A, Cheng A, et al. Differences in identifying healthcare associated infections using clinical vignettes and the influence of respondent characteristics: a cross-sectional survey of Australian infection prevention staff. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2015; 4:29.
3. Schröder C, Behnke M, Gastmeier P, et al. Case vignettes to evaluate the accuracy of identifying healthcare-associated infections by surveillance persons. J Hosp Infect 2015; 90:322-326.
4. van Mourik M, Troelstra A, van Solinge W, et al. Automated surveillance for healthcare-associated infections: opportunities for improvement. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57:85-93.
5. Freeman R, Moore L, Garćia Álvarez L, et al. Advances in electronic surveillance for healthcare-associated infections in the 21st century: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2013; 84:106-119.
6. Snyders R, Goris A, Gase K, et al. Increasing the reliability of fully automated surveillance for central line-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36:1396-1400.
7. Lin M, Woeltje K, Khan Y, et al. Multicenter evaluation of computer automated versus traditional surveillance of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 35:1483-1490.
8. Redder J, Leth R, Møller J. Incidence rates of hospital-acquired urinary tract and bloodstream infections generated by automated compilation of electronically available healthcare data. J Hosp Infect 2015; 91:231-236.
9. Hota B, Malpiedi P, Fridkin S, et al. Probabilistic measurement of central line-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016; 37:149-155.
10. Rhee C, Kadri S, Huang S, et al. Objective sepsis surveillance using electronic clinical data. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016; 37:163-171.
11. Puhto T, Syrjälä H. Incidence of healthcare-associated infections in a tertiary care hospital: results from a three-year period of electronic surveillance. J Hosp Infect 2015; 90:46-51.
12. van Mourik M, Groenwold R, Berkelbach van der Sprenkel J, et al. Automated detection of external ventricular and lumbar drain-related meningitis using laboratory and microbiology results and medication data. PLoS One 2011; 6:e22846.
13. van Mourik M, Moons K, van Solinge W, et al. Automated detection of healthcare associated infections: external validation and updating of a model for surveillance of drain-related meningitis. PLoS One 2012; 7:e51509.
14. van Mourik M, Troelstra A, Moons K, Bonten M. Accuracy of hospital discharge coding data for the surveillance of drain-related meningitis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34:433-436.
15. van Mourik M, Troelstra A, Berkelbach van der Sprenkel J, et al. Validation of an automated surveillance approach for drain-related meningitis: a multicenter study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36:65-75.
16. Rochefort C, Buckeridge D, Forster A. Accuracy of using automated methods for detecting adverse events from electronic health record data: a research protocol. Implement Sci 2015; 10:5.
17. Koller W, de Bruin J, Rappelsberger A, Adlassnig K. Advances in infection surveillance and clinical decision support with fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015; 216:295-299.
18. Hsu H, Shenoy E, Kelbaugh D, et al. An electronic surveillance tool for catheter-associated urinary tract infection in intensive care units. Am J Infect Control 2015; 43:592-599.
19. Hebden J. Slow adoption of automated infection prevention surveillance: are human factors contributing? Am J Infect Control 2015; 43:559-562.
20. Goto M, Ohl M, Schweizer M, Perencevich E. Accuracy of administrative code data for the surveillance of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58:688-696.
21. van Mourik M, van Duijn P, Moons K, et al. Accuracy of administrative data for surveillance of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2015; 5:e008424.
22. Jolley RJ, Sawka KJ, Yergens DW, et al. Validity of administrative data in recording sepsis: a systematic review. Crit Care 2015; 19:139.
23. Boggan J, Baker A, Lewis S, et al. An automated surveillance strategy to identify infectious complications after cardiac implantable electronic device procedures. Open Forum Infect Dis 2015; 2:128.
24. Parthasarathy M, Reid V, Pyne L, Groot-Wassink T. Are we recording postoperative complications correctly? Comparison of NHS Hospital Episode Statistics with the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. BMJ Qual Saf 2015; 24:594-602.
25. Rhee C, Murphy M, Li L, et al., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epicenters Program. Comparison of trends in sepsis incidence and coding using administrative claims versus objective clinical data. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 60:88-95.
26. Law A, Klompas M. Are clinical characteristics of patients with sepsis codes changing over time? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36:1364-1366.
27. Jolley R, Quan H, Jetté N, et al. Validation and optimisation of an ICD-10-coded case definition for sepsis using administrative health data. BMJ Open 2015; 5:e009487.
28. Branch-Elliman W, Strymish J, Itani K, Gupta K. Using clinical variables to guide surgical site infection detection: a novel surveillance strategy. Am J Infect Control 2014; 42:1291-1295.
29. Klompas M, Magill S, Robicsek A, et al. Objective surveillance definitions for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med 2012; 40:3154-3161.
30. Magill S, Klompas M, Balk R, et al. Developing a new, national approach to surveillance for ventilator-associated events. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:2467-2475.
31. Mann T, Ellsworth J, Huda N, et al. Building and validating a computerized algorithm for surveillance of ventilator-associated events. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36:999-1003.
32. McMullen K, Boyer A, Schoenberg N, et al. Surveillance versus clinical adjudication: differences persist with new ventilator-associated event definition. Am J Infect Control 2015; 43:589-591.
33. Phongjitsiri S, Coss-Bu J, Kennedy C, et al. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's new definitions for complications of mechanical ventilation shift the focus of quality surveillance and predict clinical outcomes in a PICU. Crit Care Med 2015; 43:2446-2451.
34. Klompas M. Potential strategies to prevent ventilator-associated events. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192:1420-1430.
35. Rock C, Thom K, Harris A, et al. A multicenter longitudinal study of hospital-onset bacteremia: time for a new quality outcome measure? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 23:1-6.