Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:39:09.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Multicenter Qualitative Study on Preventing Hospital-Acquired Urinary Tract Infection in US Hospitals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Sanjay Saint ,
Christine P. Kowalski ,
Jane Forman ,
Laura Damschroder ,
Timothy P. Hofer ,
Samuel R. Kaufman ,
John W. Creswell  and
Sarah L. Krein
Sanjay Saint*
Affiliation:
Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan Veterans Affairs Medical Center/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Christine P. Kowalski
Affiliation:
Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Jane Forman
Affiliation:
Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Laura Damschroder
Affiliation:
Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Timothy P. Hofer
Affiliation:
Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan Veterans Affairs Medical Center/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Samuel R. Kaufman
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan Veterans Affairs Medical Center/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan
John W. Creswell
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska
Sarah L. Krein*
Affiliation:
Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
*
Room 7E08, 300 N. Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0429 ([email protected])
Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service, Room 11H, 2215 Fuller Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Although urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common hospital-acquired infection, there is little information about why hospitals use or do not use a range of available preventive practices. We thus conducted a multicenter study to understand better how US hospitals approach the prevention of hospital-acquired UTI.

Methods.

This research is part of a larger study employing both quantitative and qualitative methods. The qualitative phase consisted of 38 semistructured phone interviews with key personnel at 14 purposefully sampled US hospitals and 39 in-person interviews at 5 of those 14 hospitals, to identify recurrent and unifying themes that characterize how hospitals have addressed hospital-acquired UTI.

Results.

Four recurrent themes emerged from our study data. First, although preventing hospital-acquired UTI was a low priority for most hospitals, there was substantial recognition of the value of early removal of a urinary catheter for patients. Second, those hospitals that made UTI prevention a high priority also focused on noninfectious complications and had committed advocates, or “champions,” who facilitated prevention activities. Third, hospital-specific pilot studies were important in deciding whether or not to use devices such as antimicrobial-impregnated catheters. Finally, external forces, such as public reporting, influenced UTI surveillance and infection prevention activities.

Conclusions.

Clinicians and policy makers can use our findings to develop initiatives that, for example, use a champion to promote the removal of unnecessary urinary catheters or exploit external forces, such public reporting, to enhance patient safety.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , April 2008 , pp. 333 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2008

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.Burke, JP. Patient safety: infection control—a problem for patient safety. N Engl J Med 2003;348:651–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Gerberding, JL. Hospital-onset infections: a patient safety issue. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:665–670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, Morgan, WM, Emori, TG. The nationwide nosocomial infection rate: a new need for vital statistics. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:159–167.Google Scholar
4.Haley, RW, Hooton, TM, Culver, DH, et al.Nosocomial infections in U.S. hospitals, 1975-1976: estimated frequency by selected characteristics of Patients. Am J Med 1981;70:947–959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Saint, S, Wiese, J, Amory, JK, et al.Are physicians aware of which of their patients have indwelling urinary catheters? Am J Med 2000;109:476–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Johnson, JR, Kuskowski, MA, Wilt, TJ. Systematic review: antimicrobial urinary catheters to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection in hospitalized Patients. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:116–126.Google Scholar
7.Karchmer, TB, Giannetta, ET, Muto, CA, Strain, BA, Farr, BM. A randomized crossover study of silver-coated urinary catheters in hospitalized Patients. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:3294–3298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Brosnahan, J, Jull, A, Tracy, C. Types of urethral catheters for management of short-term voiding problems in hospitalised adults. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2004:CD004013.Google Scholar
9.Cornia, PB, Amory, JK, Fraser, S, Saint, S, Lipsky, BA. Computer-based order entry decreases duration of indwelling urinary catheterization in hospitalized Patients. Am J Med 2003;114:404–407.Google Scholar
10.Huang, WC, Wann, SR, Lin, SL, et al.Catheter-associated urinary tract infections in intensive care units can be reduced by prompting physicians to remove unnecessary catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:974–978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Saint, S, Kaufman, SR, Rogers, MA, Baker, PD, Ossenkop, K, Lipsky, BA. Condom versus indwelling urinary catheters: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54:1055–1061.Google Scholar
12.Saint, S, Lipsky, BA, Goold, SD. Indwelling urinary catheters: a one-point restraint? Ann Intern Med 2002;137:125–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Warren, JW. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2001;17:299–303.Google Scholar
14.Warren, JW. The catheter and urinary tract infection. Med Clin North Am 1991;75:481–493.Google Scholar
15.Stamm, WE. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections: epidemiology, pathogenesis, and prevention. Am J Med 1991;91:65S–71S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Maki, DG, Tambyah, PA. Engineering out the risk for infection with urinary catheters. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:342–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Saint, S, Chenoweth, CE. Biofilms and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2003;17:411–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Saint, S, Lipsky, BA. Preventing catheter-related bacteriuria: can we? should we? how? Arch Intern Med 1999;159:800–808.Google Scholar
19.Saint, S, Kowalski, CP, Kaufman, SR, et al.Preventing hospital-acquired urinary tract infection in the United States: a national study. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:243–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Krein, SL, Hofer, TP, Kowalski, CP, et al.Use of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection prevention practices by US hospitals. Mayo Clin Proc 2007;82:672–678.Google Scholar
21.Krein, SL, Olmsted, RN, Hofer, TP, et al.Translating infection prevention evidence into practice using quantitative and qualitative research. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:507–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Patton, MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002.Google Scholar
23.Weiss, RS. Learning From Strangers: the art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: The Free Press; 1994.Google Scholar
24.Sandelowski, M. Focus on research methods: whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health 2000;23:334–340.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Mason, J. Qualitative Researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002.Google Scholar
26.Sandelowski, M, Barroso, J. Writing the proposal for a qualitative research methodology project. Qual Health Res 2003;13:781–820.Google Scholar
27.Creswell, JW. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson Education; 2002.Google Scholar
28.Greenhalgh, T, Robert, G, Macfarlane, F, Bate, P, Kyriakidou, O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004;82:581–629.Google Scholar
29.Pear, R. Medicare says it won't cover hospital errors. The New York Times August 19, 2007:A1.Google Scholar