Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:57:36.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automated Entry of Hospital Infection Surveillance Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Edward T.M. Smyth ,
Gerard McIlvenny ,
Jack G. Barr ,
Lorna M. Dickson  and
Irene M. Thompson
Edward T.M. Smyth*
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, The Royal Hospitals, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gerard McIlvenny
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, The Royal Hospitals, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Jack G. Barr
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, The Royal Hospitals, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Lorna M. Dickson
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, The Royal Hospitals, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Irene M. Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, The Royal Hospitals, Belfast, Northern Ireland
*
Department of Bacteriology, Kelvin Bldg, The Royal Hospitals, Belfast, BT12 6BA, Northern Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the accuracy of an automated data entry system employing optical scanning technology and to provide an analysis of its costs as compared to manual data entry.

Design:

The accuracy and cost of automated data entry of 100 surgical-wound infection surveillance questionnaires was compared to manual entry.

Setting:

The Surgical Directorate, The Royal Hospitals, Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Results:

The use of optical scanning technology greatly improved the speed and accuracy of data entry. The time spent by the keyboard operator on data entry was reduced substantially.

For each surgical-wound infection questionnaire automatically processed, there was a saving in clerical time equivalent to $0.63. The automated data entry process resulted in a 22-fold productivity increase compared to manual data entry with validation. After validation, an error rate of <0.2 errors per 1,000 responses was detected in automatically entered data compared to a rate of 12.4 errors per 1,000 responses for manually entered data. The automated system, including validation, provided a sevenfold productivity increase compared to “quick-and-dirty” manual data entry without validation.

Conclusion:

Hospital information technology systems may achieve total integration of data management, but realistically this would appear to be very much in the future. Until then, in view of the accuracy and substantial savings in time and money, we recommend the use of automated data entry technology. This system would be especially useful where data are transported from outlying hospitals to a central receiving center for collation and analysis.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 18 , Issue 7 , July 1997 , pp. 486 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1997

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. Meers, PD, Ayliffe, GAJ, Emmerson, AM, et al. Report on the national survey of infection in hospitals, 1980. J Hosp Infect 1981;2(suppl):1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bernander, S, Hambreaus, A, Myrback, KE, et al. Prevalence of hospital associated infection in five Swedish hospitals in November 1975. Scand J Infect Dis 1978;10:66–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Jepsen, OB, Mortensen, N. Prevalence of nosocomial infection and infection control in Denmark. J Hosp Infect 1980;1:237–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Hovig, B, Lystad, A, Opsjon, H. A prevalence survey of infections among hospitalised patients in Norway. NIPH Annals (Oslo) 1981;4:49–60.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Epine Working Group. Prevalence of hospital-acquired infections in Spain. J Hosp Infect 1992;20:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Mertens, R, Kegels, G, Stroobant, A, et al. The national prevalence survey of nosocomial infections in Belgium, 1984. J Hosp Infect 1987;9:219–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al. The nation-wide noso-comial infection rate: a new need for vital statistics. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Department of Health and Social Security. Hospital Infection Control. Guidance on the Control of Infection in Hospitals. Prepared by the joint DHSS/PHLS Hospital Infection Working Group. HC (88) 33. London, England: HMSO; 1988.Google Scholar
9. Martone, WJ, Jarvis, WR, Culver, DH, et al. Incidence and nature of endemic and epidemic nosocomial infections. In: Bennett, JV, Brachman, PS, eds. Hospital Infections. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1992:577–596.Google Scholar
10. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:182–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Emberton, M, Rockall, T, Meredith, P. Scanning for audit. British Journal of Healthcare, Computing, and Information Management 1994;11:23–25.Google Scholar
12. Smyth, ETM, Emmerson, AM. Survey of infection in hospitals: use of an automated data entry system. J Hosp Infect 1996;34:87–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Emmerson, AM. Surveys and hospital infection. J Hosp Infect 1995;30(suppl):421–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed