Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:43:07.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Toolkit for Monitoring Hospital-Acquired Bloodstream Infection in Neonatal Intensive Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Pamela Leighton ,
Mario Cortina-Borja ,
Michael Millar ,
Stephen Kempley  and
Ruth Gilbert
Pamela Leighton*
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health, University College London Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
Mario Cortina-Borja
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health, University College London Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
Michael Millar
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, Barts and the London National Health Service Trust, Whitechapel, London, United Kingdom
Stephen Kempley
Affiliation:
Centre for Paediatrics, Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Whitechapel, London, United Kingdom
Ruth Gilbert
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health, University College London Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
*
Medical Research Council Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health, University College London Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, United Kingdom ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

In neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), monitoring hospital-acquired bloodstream infection (BSI) is critical to alert clinicians to variations in the incidence of infection between units and over time. We demonstrate a toolkit of monitoring techniques that account for case mix and could be implemented using routinely available clinical data. This toolkit could enable quality of care comparisons between hospitals to facilitate the sharing of improved practices.

Design.

Prospective study over 4 years.

Setting and Patients.

Babies admitted to 2 tertiary London NICUs.

Methods.

We derived expected numbers of BSI episodes using a Poisson regression risk model adjusting for variations in birth weight, transfers to the NICU from other hospitals, postnatal age, and days spent at each National Health Service level of care. We compared observed and expected numbers of BSI episodes using 2 monitoring techniques: standardized infection ratios (SIRs) and the sequential probability ratio test (SPRT).

Results.

Using the SIR method, observed BSI incidence increased over expected incidence in 2002 at both NICUs, but this increase did not reach statistical significance at the 1% level. Using the SPRT method, neither unit showed a clinically important increase or decrease, defined as a 30% deviation from expected incidence.

Conclusions.

Risk-adjusted BSI monitoring can be performed using routine hospital data. NICUs could use SIRs for an annual look back at infection incidence and SPRTs for prospective, quarterly monitoring. The SIR and the SPRT methods have different strengths, and both could help clinicians improve infection control and patient care in NICUs.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 33 , Issue 8 , August 2012 , pp. 831 - 836
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Parry, GJ, Tucker, JS, Tarnow-Mordi, WO. Relationship between probable nosocomial bacteraemia and organisational and structural factors in UK neonatal intensive care units. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:264–269.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Stoll, BJ, Hansen, NI, Adams-Chapman, I, et al. Neurodevelop-mental and growth impairment among extremely low-birth-weight infants with neonatal infection. JAMA 2004;292: 2357–2365.Google Scholar
3.Kilbride, HW, Powers, R, Wirtschafter, DD, et al. Evaluation and development of potentially better practices to prevent neonatal nosocomial bacteremia. Pediatrics 2003;111:e504–e518.Google Scholar
4.Kilbride, HW, Wirtschafter, DD, Powers, RJ, et al. Implementation of evidence-based potentially better practices to decrease nosocomial infections. Pediatrics 2003;111:e519–e533.Google Scholar
5.Gill, AW, Keil, AD, Jones, C, Aydon, L, Biggs, S. Tracking neonatal nosocomial infection: the continuous quality improvement cycle. J Hosp Infect 2011;78:20–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Weireter, LJ Jr, Collins, JN, Britt, RC, Reed, SF, Novosel, TJ, Britt, LD. Impact of a monitored program of care on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: results of a longterm performance-improvement project. J Am Coll Surg 2009;208:700–704.Google Scholar
7.Couto, RC, Pedrosa, TM, Tofani, CP, Pedroso, ER. Risk factors for nosocomial infection in a neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:571–575.Google Scholar
8.Phillips, P, Cortina-Borja, M, Millar, M, Gilbert, R. Risk-adjusted surveillance of hospital-acquired infections in neonatal intensive care units: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2008;70:203–211.Google Scholar
9.British Association of Perinatal Medicine. Standards for Hospitals Providing Neonatal Intensive and High Dependency Care (Second Edition) and Categories of Babies Requiring Neonatal Care. London:British Association of Perinatal Medicine, 2001.Google Scholar
10.Phillips, P, Cortina-Borja, M, Gilbert, R, Millar, M, Kempley, S. Risk stratification by level of care for comparing bloodstream infection rates in neonatal intensive care units. J Hosp Infect 2009;72:181–183.Google Scholar
11.Phillips, P, Cortina-Borja, M, Millar, M, Kempley, S, Gilbert, R. Variation in infection incidence between neonatal intensive care units can depend on the measures used. J Hosp Infect 2009;72: 363–365.Google Scholar
12.Leighton, P, Cortina-Borja, M, Millar, M, Kempley, S, Gilbert, R. Risk-adjusted comparisons of bloodstream infection rates in neonatal intensive-care units. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012, doi: 10.111 1/j.1469-0691.2011.03733.x.Google Scholar
13.Leal, J, Gregson, DB, Ross, T, Flemons, WW, Church, DL, Laupland, KB. Development of a novel electronic surveillance system for monitoring of bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:740–747.Google Scholar
14.Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance Subgroup. Report on HCAI Surveillance Priorities: Recommendations for HCAI Surveillance in England. London: Department of Health, 2010.Google Scholar
15.Neonatal Networks. Standardised Electronic Neonatal Database. London: Neonatal Networks, 2006-2011. http://www.neonatal.org.uk/send. Accessed January 2012.Google Scholar
16.Gastmeier, P, Sohr, D, Just, HM, Nassauer, A, Daschner, F, Ruden, H. How to survey nosocomial infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:366–370.Google Scholar
17.Wald, A. Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses. Ann Math Stat 1945;6:117–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Grigg, OA, Farewell, VT, Spiegelhalter, DJ. Use of risk-adjusted CUSUM and RSPRT charts for monitoring in medical contexts. Stat Methods Med Res 2003;12:147–170.Google Scholar
19.Spiegelhalter, D, Grigg, O, Kinsman, R, Treasure, T. Risk-adjusted sequential probability ratio tests: applications to Bristol, Ship-man and adult cardiac surgery. Int J Qual Health Care 2003;15: 7–13.Google Scholar
20.Microsoft. Excel 2003. Redmond, WA: Microsoft, 2003.Google Scholar
21.StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. College Station, TX: StataCorp, 2007.Google Scholar
22.Spiegelhalter, DJ. Monitoring clinical performance: a commentary. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;128:820–822.Google Scholar
23.Huang, SY, Tang, RB, Chen, SJ, Chung, RL. Coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia in critically ill children: risk factors and antimicrobial susceptibility. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2003;36:51–55.Google Scholar
24.Lin, MY, Hota, B, Khan, YM, et al. Quality of traditional surveillance for public reporting of nosocomial bloodstream infection rates. JAMA 2010;304:2035–2041.Google Scholar
25.Wilkinson, J, Powell, A, Davies, H. Evidence: Are Clinicians Engaged in Quality Improvement. London: Health Foundation, 2011.Google Scholar