Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:27:23.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Reporting of Health Care–Associated Infections (HAIs): Approach to Choosing HAI Measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

C. L. Passaretti ,
P. Barclay ,
P. Pronovost ,
T. M. Perl  and
Maryland Health Care Commission Health Care–Associated Infection Technical Advisory Committee
C. L. Passaretti*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; and Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
P. Barclay
Affiliation:
Maryland Health Care Commission, Baltimore, Maryland
P. Pronovost
Affiliation:
Center for Innovations in Quality Patient Care; and Departments of Anesthesiology/Critical Care Medicine, Surgery, and Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
T. M. Perl
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; and Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
*
Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, 4940 Eastern Avenue, B3N, Office 353, Baltimore, MD 21224 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To develop a method for selecting health care–associated infection (HAI) measures for public reporting.

Context.

HAIs are common, serious, and costly adverse outcomes of medical care that affect 2 million people in the United States annually. Thirty-seven states have introduced or passed legislation requiring public reporting of HAI measures. State legislation varies widely regarding which HAIs to report, how the data are collected and reported, and public availability of results.

Design.

The Maryland Health Care Commission developed an HAI Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that consisted of a group of experts in the field of healthcare epidemiology, infection prevention and control (IPC), and public health. This group reviewed public reporting systems in other states, surveyed Maryland hospitals to determine the current state of IPC programs, performed a literature review on HAI measures, and developed six criteria for ranking the measures: impact, unprovability, inclusiveness, frequency, functionality, and feasibility. The committee and experts in the field then ranked each of 18 proposed HAI measures. A composite score was determined for each measure.

Results.

Among outcome measures, the rate of central line–associated bloodstream infections ranked highest, followed by the rate of post–coronary artery bypass grafting surgical-site infections. Among process measures, perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis, compliance with central-line bundles, compliance with hand hygiene, and healthcare-worker influenza vaccination ranked highest.

Conclusions.

Our qualitative criteria facilitated consensus on the HAI TAC and provided a useful framework for public reporting of HAI measures. Validation will be important for such approaches to be supported by the scientific community.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 32 , Issue 8 , August 2011 , pp. 768 - 774
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2011

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.Hannan, EL, Sarrazin, MS, Doran, DR, Rosenthal, GE. Provider profiling and quality improvement efforts in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the effect on short-term mortality among Medicare beneficiaries. Med Care 2003;41(10):1164–1172.Google Scholar
2.Hannan, EL, Kumar, D, Racz, M, Siu, AL, Chassin, MR. New York State's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System: four years later. Ann Thorac Surg 1994;58(6):1852–1857.Google Scholar
3.Clough, JD, Engler, D, Snow, R, Canuto, PE. Lack of relationship between the Cleveland Health Quality Choice Project and decreased inpatient mortality in Cleveland. Am J Med Qual 2002;17(2):47–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Ghali, WA, Ash, AS, Hall, RE, Moskowitz, MA. Statewide quality improvement initiatives and mortality after cardiac surgery. JAMA 1997;277(5):379–382.Google Scholar
5.Peterson, ED, DeLong, ER, Jollis, JG, Muhlbaier, LH, Mark, DB. The effects of New York's bypass surgery provider profiling on access to care and patient outcomes in the elderly. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32(4):993–999.Google Scholar
6.Rosenthal, GE, Quinn, L, Harper, DL. Declines in hospital mortality associated with a regional initiative to measure hospital performance. Am J Med Qual 1997;12(2):103–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Long, DR, Land, G, Schramm, W, Fraas, J, Hoskins, B, Howell, V. Consumer reports in health care: do they make a difference in patient care? JAMA 1997;278(19):1579–1584.Google Scholar
8.Steinbrook, R. Public report cards: cardiac surgery and beyond. N Engl J Med 2006;355(18):1847–1849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Werner, RM, Bradlow, ET. Relationship between Medicare's Hospital Compare performance measures and mortality rates. JAMA 2006;296(22):2694–2702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Werner, RM, Asch, DA. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. JAMA 2005;293(10):1239–1244.Google Scholar
11.Hibbard, JH, Stockard, J, Tusler, M. Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts? Health Affairs 2003;22(2):84–94Google Scholar
12.Klevens, RM, Edwards, JR, Richards, CL Jret al.Estimating healthcare-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep 2007;122(2):160–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Weinstein, RA. Nosocomial infection update. Emerg Infect Dis 1998;4(3):416–420.Google Scholar
14. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. Legislation in progress. http://www.apic.org/scriptcontent/custom/dyncontent/legislation/index.cfm?section=government_advocacy. Accessed December 2009.Google Scholar
15.Wald, HL, Kramer, AM. Nonpayment for harms resulting from medical care: catheter-associated urinary tract infections. JAMA 2007;298(23):2782–2784.Google Scholar
16.McKibben, L, Fowler, G, Horan, T, Brennan, PJ. Ensuring rational public reporting systems for health care–associated infections: systematic literature review and evaluation recommendations. Am J Infect Control 2006;34(3):142–149.Google Scholar
17.McKibben, L, Horan, T, Tokars, JI, et al.Guidance on public reporting of healthcare-associated infections: Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 2005;33(4):217–226.Google Scholar
18.Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. APIC Position Paper on Mandatory Public Reporting of HAI. https://www.vha.com/Solutions/ClinicalImprovement/HAI/Documents/apic_position_paper_mandatory_public_reporting_hai.pdf. Published March 14, 2005. Accessed December 2009.Google Scholar
19.Wong, ES, Rupp, ME, Mermel, L, et al.Public disclosure of healthcare-associated infections: the role of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26(2):210–212.Google Scholar
20.Maryland Health Care Commission. Developing a system for collecting and publicly reporting data on healthcare-associated infections in Maryland. http://mhcc.maryland.gov/healthcare_associated_infections/hai_report_jan2008/hai_cover.html.Google Scholar
21.Sexton, DJ, Chen, LF, Anderson, DJ. Current definitions of central line–associated bloodstream infection: is the emperor wearing clothes? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(12):1286–1289.Google Scholar
22.Niedner, MF. 2008 National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Patient Care Focus Group. The harder you look, the more you find: catheter-associated bloodstream infection surveillance variability. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(8):585–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Klompas, M, Platt, R. Ventilator associated pneumonia: the wrong quality measure for benchmarking. Ann Intern Med 2007;147(11):803–805.Google Scholar
24.Klompas, M, Kulldorff, M, Platt, R. Risk of misleading ventilator-associated pneumonia rates with use of standard clinical and microbiological criteria. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46(9):1443–1446.Google Scholar
25.Uçkay, I, Ahmed, QA, Sax, H, Pittet, D. Ventilator-associated pneumonia as a quality indicator for patient safety? Clin Infect Dis 2008;46(4):557–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Braun, BI, Kusek, L, Larson, E. Measuring adherence to hand hygiene guidelines: a field survey for examples of effective practices. Am J Infect Control 2008;37(4):282–288.Google Scholar
27.Haas, JP, Larson, EL. Measurement of compliance with hand hygiene. J Hosp Infect 2007;66(1):6–14.Google Scholar
28.Jones, J, Hunter, D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. Br Med J 1995;311(7001):376–380.Google Scholar