Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:51:38.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of Metrics Used to Track CLABSIs and CAUTIs Across a Regional Network

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2020

Sonali Advani
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center
Becky Smith
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center
Jessica Seidelman
Affiliation:
Duke University
Nicholas Turner
Affiliation:
Duke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention
Christopher Hostler
Affiliation:
Duke University Health System
Deverick John Anderson
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center
Sarah Lewis
Affiliation:
Duke University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Background: The standardized infection ratio (SIR) is the nationally adopted metric used to track and compare catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) and central-line– associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). Despite its widespread use, the SIR may not be suitable for all settings and may not capture all catheter harm. Our objective was to look at the correlation between SIR and device use for CAUTIs and CLABSIs across community hospitals in a regional network. Methods: We compared SIR and SUR (standardized utilization ratio) for CAUTIs and CLABSIs across 43 hospitals in the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network (DICON) using a scatter plot and calculated an R2 value. Hospitals were stratified into large (>70,000 patient days), medium (30,000–70,000 patient days), and small hospitals (<30,000 patient days) based on DICON’s benchmarking for community hospitals. Results: We reviewed 24 small, 11 medium, and 8 large hospitals within DICON. Scatter plots for comparison of SIRs and SURs for CLABSIs and CAUTIs across our network hospitals are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. We detected a weak positive overall correlation between SIR and SUR for CLABSIs (0.33; R2 = 0.11), but no correlation between SIR and SUR for CAUTIs (−0.07; R2 = 0.00). Of 15 hospitals with SUR >1, 7 reported SIR <1 for CLABSIs, whereas 10 of 13 hospitals with SUR >1 reported SIR <1 for CAUTIs. Smaller hospitals showed a better correlation for CLABSI SIR and SUR (0.37) compared to medium and large hospitals (0.19 and 0.22, respectively). Conversely, smaller hospitals showed no correlation between CAUTI SIR and SUR, whereas medium and larger hospitals showed a negative correlation (−0.31 and −0.39, respectively). Conclusions: Our data reveal a weak positive correlation between SIR and SUR for CLABSIs, suggesting that central line use impacts CLABSI SIR to some extent. However, we detected no correlation between SIR and SUR for CAUTIs in smaller hospitals and a negative correlation for medium and large hospitals. Some hospitals with low CAUTI SIRs might actually have higher device use, and vice versa. Therefore, the SIR alone does not adequately reflect preventable harm related to urinary catheters. Public reporting of SIR may incentivize hospitals to focus more on urine culture stewardship rather than reducing device utilization.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.