Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:23:45.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indirect Versus Direct Standardization Methods for Reporting Healthcare-Associated Infections: An Analysis of Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections in Maryland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2017

Lyndsay M. O’Hara ,
Max Masnick ,
Surbhi Leekha ,
Sarah S. Jackson ,
Natalia Blanco  and
Anthony D. Harris
Lyndsay M. O’Hara
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Max Masnick
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Surbhi Leekha
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sarah S. Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Natalia Blanco
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Anthony D. Harris*
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
*
Address correspondence to Dr. Anthony Harris, 10 S. Pine St, Baltimore, MD 21201 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Whether healthcare-associated infection data should be presented using indirect (current CMS/CDC methodology) or direct standardization remains controversial. We applied both methods to central-line–associated bloodstream infection data from 45 acute-care hospitals in Maryland from 2012 to 2014. We found that the 2 methods generate different hospital rankings with payment implications.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:989–992

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 38 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 989 - 992
Copyright
© 2017 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

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

REFERENCES

1. Medicare.gov Hospital Compare website. US Official Medicare website. https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html. Accessed November 1, 2016.Google Scholar
2. Birnbaum, D, Zarate, R, Marfin, A. SIR, you’ve led me astray!. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:276–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Delgado-Rodríguez, M, Llorca, J. Caution should be exercised when using the standardized infection ratio. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:8–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Gustafson, TL. Three uses of the standardized infection ratio (SIR) in infection control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:427–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Julious, SA, Nicholl, J, George, S. Why do we continue to use standardized mortality ratios for small area comparisons? J Pub Health 2001;23:40–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Edwards, JR, Peterson, KD, Mu, Y, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report: data summary for 2006 through 2008, issued December 2009. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:783–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Wilcosky, T. Chapter 6. Standardization of rates and ratios in understanding the fundamentals of epidemiology [doctoral dissertation]. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, School of Public Health.Google Scholar
8. Szklo, M, Nieto, FJ. Epidemiology: beyond the basics. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2007.Google Scholar
9. Masnick, M, Morgan, DJ, Sorkin, JD, et al. Lack of patient understanding of hospital-acquired infection data published on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare website. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:182–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Lee, WC. Standardization using the harmonically weighted ratios: internal and external comparisons. Stat Med 2002;21:247–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed