Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T07:55:53.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Is It That Internists Do Not Follow Guidelines for Preventing Intravascular Catheter Infections?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Lewis Rubinson ,
Albert W. Wu ,
Edward F. Haponik  and
Gregory B. Diette
Lewis Rubinson*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Albert W. Wu
Affiliation:
Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
Edward F. Haponik
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Gregory B. Diette
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
*
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 1830 East Monument Street, 5th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205.[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background and Objective:

High morbidity of CVC-related infections has led to national guidelines for their prevention. Despite recommendations for the use of maximal barrier precautions (mask, sterile gloves, gown, and large drape) and skin antisepsis with 2% Chlorhexidine gluconate during CVC insertion, internists in the United States are not implementing these practices frequently. This study sought to identify and characterize the obstacles to and potential opportunities for improving adherence.

Design:

Cross-sectional survey.

Participants:

One thousand randomly selected physician-members of the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine.

Methods:

Several potential determinants of adherence to maximal barrier precautions were assessed, including awareness of, agreement with, and ability to implement the recommendation, as well as the practice and training characteristics of the respondents. Factors influencing antiseptic selection were also recorded.

Results:

Of 526 respondents, 178 (34%) had recently inserted CVCs. Clinician experience and subspecialty, awareness of CDC guidelines, and external influences (eg, time to collect equipment) did not affect maximal barrier precautions adherence. The only independent predictor of adherence was high outcome expectancy for the use of large sterile drapes (OR, 5.3; CI95, 2.2-12.6). Availability had the greatest influence on internists' selection of specific antiseptic agents, whereas cost was the least important determinant.

Conclusions:

Despite established efficacy, use of maximal barrier precautions and Chlorhexidine gluconate is low among internists. Because improved adherence to these practices will require increased outcome expectancy for maximal barrier precautions and availability of Chlorhexidine gluconate, targeting these areas through focused education and systems modifications is essential (Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:525-533).

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , June 2005 , pp. 525 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2005

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.Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128–140.Google Scholar
2.Valles, J, Leon, C, Alvarez-Lerma, F. Nosocomial bacteremia in critically ill patients: a multicenter study evaluating epidemiology and prognosis. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:387–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Lark, RL, Chenoweth, C, Saint, S, Zemencuk, JK, Lipsky, BA, Plorde, JJ. Four year prospective evaluation of nosocomial bacteremia: epidemiology, microbiology, and patient outcome. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2000;38:131–140.Google Scholar
4.Richards, MJ, Edwards, JR, Culver, DH, Gaynes, RP. Nosocomial infections in medical intensive care units in the United States. Crit Care Med 1999;27:887–892.Google Scholar
5.National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System report: data summary from January 1992-June 2001, issued August 2001. Am J Infect Control 2001;29:404–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Mermel, LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:391–402.Google Scholar
7.Mermel, LA. Correction: catheter-related bloodstream infections. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133:395.Google Scholar
8.Warren, DK, Zack, JE, Elward, AM, Cox, MJ, Fraser, VJ. Nosocomial primary bloodstream infections in intensive care unit patients in a non-teaching community medical center: a 21-month prospective study. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33:1329–1335.Google Scholar
9.Polderman, KH, Girbes, AR. Central venous catheter use: Part 2. Infectious complications. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:18–28.Google Scholar
10.Digiovine, B, Chenoweth, C, Watts, C, Higgins, M. The attributable mortality and costs of primary nosocomial bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160:976–981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Dimick, JB, Pelz, RK, Consunji, R, Swoboda, SM, Hendrix, CW, Lipsett, PA. Increased resource use associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg 2001;136:229–234.Google Scholar
12.Mermel, LA, Farr, BM, Sherertz, RJ, et al.Guidelines for the management of intravascular catheter-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:222–242.Google Scholar
13.Polderman, KH, Girbes, AJ. Central venous catheter use: Part 1. Mechanical complications. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:1–17.Google Scholar
14.Saint, S, Veenstra, DL, Lipsky, BA. The clinical and economic consequences of nosocomial central venous catheter-related infection: are antimicrobial catheters useful? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:375–380.Google Scholar
15.Veenstra, DL, Saint, S, Sullivan, SD. Cost-effectiveness of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection. JAMA 1999;282:554–560.Google Scholar
16.Fridkin, SK, Gaynes, RP. Antimicrobial resistance in intensive care units. Clin Chest Med 1999;20:303–316, viii.Google Scholar
17.Shlaes, DM, Gerding, DN, John, JF, et al.Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and Infectious Diseases Society of America Joint Committee on the Prevention of Antimicrobial Resistance: guidelines for the prevention of antimicrobial resistance in hospitals. Clin Infect Dis 1997;25:584–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Anonymous. Staphylococcus aureus resistant to vancomycin: United States, 2002. MMWR 2002;51:565–567.Google Scholar
19.Archibald, L, Phillips, L, Monnet, D, McGowan, JE Jr, Tenover, F, Gaynes, R. Antimicrobial resistance in isolates from inpatients and outpatients in the United States: increasing importance of the intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:211–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Halpern, NA, Pastores, SM, Greenstein, RJ. Critical care medicine in the United States 1985-2000: an analysis of bed numbers, use, and costs. Crit Care Med 2004;32:1254–1259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Eggimann, P, Pittet, D. Infection control in the ICU. Chest 2001;120:2059–2093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Pearson, ML. Guideline for prevention of intravascular-device-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:438–473.Google ScholarPubMed
23.Pearson, ML. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections: Part I. Intravascular device-related infections: an overview. Am J Infect Control 1996;24:262–277.Google Scholar
24.Rubinson, L, Haponik, EF, Wu, AW, Diette, GB. Internists' adherence to guidelines for prevention of intravascular catheter infections. JAMA 2003;290:2802.Google Scholar
25.Shojania, KG, Duncan, BW, McDonald, KM, Wachter, RM, eds. Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 43. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001. (Prepared by the University of California at San Francisco-Stanford Evidence-Based Practice Center Under Contract No. 290-97-0013; AHRQ publication no. 01-E058.)Google Scholar
26.Saint, S, Savel, RH, Matthay, MA. Enhancing the safety of critically ill patients by reducing urinary and central venous catheter-related infections. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165:1475–1479.Google Scholar
27.Chaiyakunapruk, N, Veenstra, DL, Lipsky, BA, Saint, S. Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:792–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Clemence, MA, Walker, D, Farr, BM. Central venous catheter practices: results of a survey. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:5–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Cabana, MD, Rand, CS, Powe, NR, et al.Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999;282:1458–1465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.O'Grady, NP. On the road to avoiding adverse events: educational programs pave the way. Crit Care Med 2003;31:2077–2078.Google Scholar
31.Pathman, DE, Konrad, TR, Freed, GL, Freeman, VA, Koch, GG. The awareness-to-adherence model of the steps to clinical guideline compliance: the case of pediatric vaccine recommendations. Med Care 1996;34:873–889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Finkelstein, JA, Lozano, P, Shulruff, R, et al.Self-reported physician practices for children with asthma: are national guidelines followed? Pediatrics 2000;106:886–896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Woolf, SH. Practice guidelines: a new reality in medicine. III. Impact on patient care. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:2646–2655.Google Scholar
34.Asch, DA, Jedrziewski, MK, Christakis, NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1129–1136.Google Scholar
35.Harrell, FE Jr, Lee, KL, Mark, DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996;15:361–387.Google Scholar
36.Sherertz, RJ, Heard, SO, Raad, II. Diagnosis of triple-lumen catheter infection: comparison of roll plate, sonication, and flushing methodologies. J Clin Microbiol 1997;35:641–646.Google Scholar
37.Raad, I. Intravascular-catheter-related infections. Lancet 1998;351:893–898.Google Scholar
38.Mermel, LA, McCormick, RD, Springman, SR, Maki, DG. The pathogenesis and epidemiology of catheter-related infection with pulmonary artery Swan-Ganz catheters: a prospective study utilizing molecular subtyping. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl):197S–205S.Google Scholar
39.Atela, I, Coll, P, Relio, J, et al.Serial surveillance cultures of skin and catheter hub specimens from critically ill patients with central venous catheters: molecular epidemiology of infection and implications for clinical management and research. J Clin Microbiol 1997;35:1784–1790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Crnich, CJ, Maki, DG. The promise of novel technology for the prevention of intravascular device-related bloodstream infection: I. Pathogenesis and short-term devices. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:1232–1242.Google Scholar
41.Raad, II, Hohn, DC, Gilbreath, BJ, et al.Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:231–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Braun, BI, Kritchevsky, SB, Wong, ES, et al.Preventing central venous catheter-associated primary bloodstream infections: characteristics of practices among hospitals participating in the Evaluation of Processes and Indicators in Infection Control (EPIC) study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:926–935.Google Scholar
43.Landry, MD, Sibbald, WJ. Changing physician behavior: a review of patient safety in critical care medicine. J Crit Care 2002;17:138–145.Google Scholar
44.Smith, WR. Evidence for the effectiveness of techniques to change physician behavior. Chest 2000;118(suppl):8S–17S.Google Scholar
45.Davis, DA, Taylor-Vaisey, A. Translating guidelines into practice: a systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ 1997;157:408–416.Google Scholar
46.Sherertz, RJ, Ely, EW, Westbrook, DM, et al.Education of physicians-in-training can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:641–648.Google Scholar
47.Pearson, ML. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections: Part II. Recommendations for the prevention of nosocomial intravascular device-related infections. Am J Infect Control 1996; 24:277–293.Google Scholar
48.O'Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Dellinger, EP, et al.Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51:1–29.Google Scholar
49.O'Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Dellinger, EP, et al.Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control 2002;30:476–489.Google Scholar
50.O'Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Dellinger, EP, et al.Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Pediatrics 2002;110:e51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.O'Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Dellinger, EP, et al.Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:759–769.Google Scholar
52.Kelierman, SE, Herold, J. Physician response to surveys: a review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 2001;20:61–67.Google Scholar
53.Angus, DC, Kelley, MA, Schmitz, RJ, White, A, Popovich, J Jr.Caring for the critically ill patient. Current and projected workforce requirements for care of the critically ill and patients with pulmonary disease: can we meet the requirements of an aging population? JAMA 2000;284:2762–2770.Google Scholar