UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Assessing the burden of healthcare-associated infections through prevalence studies: what is the best method?


Zingg, Walter; Huttner, Benedikt D; Sax, Hugo; Pittet, Didier (2014). Assessing the burden of healthcare-associated infections through prevalence studies: what is the best method? Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 35(6):674-684.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore differences in the prevalence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) according to survey methodology.
DESIGN: Repeated point and period prevalence survey strategies.
SETTING: University-affiliated primary and tertiary care center.
METHODS: Analysis of data collected from 2006 to 2012 from annual HAI prevalence surveys using definitions proposed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study design allowed the analysis of the same data in the format of a point or a period prevalence survey.
RESULTS: Pooled point and period HAI prevalence was 7.46% and 9.84% (+32%), respectively. This additional 32% was mainly attributable to infections of the lower respiratory tract (2.42% vs 3.20% [+32%]) and the urinary tract (1.76% vs 2.62% [+49%]). Differences in surgical site infections (1.02% vs 1.20% [+19%]) and bloodstream infections (0.76% vs 0.86% [+13%]) were smaller. HAI prevalence for the point and period methodology in acute and long-term care were 7.47% versus 9.38 (+26%) and 8.37% versus 11.89% (+42%), respectively. Differences were stable over time. Focusing on the 4 major HAIs (respiratory tract, urinary tract, surgical site, and bloodstream infections) misses one-quarter of all HAIs.
CONCLUSIONS: More HAIs are identified by the period prevalence method, especially those of shorter duration (lower respiratory and urinary tract), which would make this method more suitable to be used in long-term care. Results of the 2 study methods cannot be benchmarked against each other.

OBJECTIVE: To explore differences in the prevalence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) according to survey methodology.
DESIGN: Repeated point and period prevalence survey strategies.
SETTING: University-affiliated primary and tertiary care center.
METHODS: Analysis of data collected from 2006 to 2012 from annual HAI prevalence surveys using definitions proposed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study design allowed the analysis of the same data in the format of a point or a period prevalence survey.
RESULTS: Pooled point and period HAI prevalence was 7.46% and 9.84% (+32%), respectively. This additional 32% was mainly attributable to infections of the lower respiratory tract (2.42% vs 3.20% [+32%]) and the urinary tract (1.76% vs 2.62% [+49%]). Differences in surgical site infections (1.02% vs 1.20% [+19%]) and bloodstream infections (0.76% vs 0.86% [+13%]) were smaller. HAI prevalence for the point and period methodology in acute and long-term care were 7.47% versus 9.38 (+26%) and 8.37% versus 11.89% (+42%), respectively. Differences were stable over time. Focusing on the 4 major HAIs (respiratory tract, urinary tract, surgical site, and bloodstream infections) misses one-quarter of all HAIs.
CONCLUSIONS: More HAIs are identified by the period prevalence method, especially those of shorter duration (lower respiratory and urinary tract), which would make this method more suitable to be used in long-term care. Results of the 2 study methods cannot be benchmarked against each other.

Citations

5 citations in Web of Science®
4 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

19 downloads since deposited on 16 Dec 2014
17 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Infectious Diseases
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:June 2014
Deposited On:16 Dec 2014 16:02
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 18:37
Publisher:University of Chicago Press
ISSN:0899-823X
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1086/676424
PubMed ID:24799644
Permanent URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-102410

Download

[img]
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 407kB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations