The quality of public reporting of bloodstream infection rates among hospitals may be effected by the variation in surveillance methods, according to a study in the Nov. 10 issue of JAMA.
Public reporting of hospital-specific infection rates is widely promoted as a means to improve patient safety. Central line [central venous catheter]-associated bloodstream infection (BSI) rates are considered a key patient safety measure because such infections are frequent, lead to poor patient outcomes, are costly to the medical system, and are preventable. Publishing infection rates on hospital report cards, which is increasingly required by regulatory agencies, is intended to facilitate interhospital comparisons that inform healthcare consumers and provide incentive for hospitals to prevent infections. Interhospital comparisons of infection rates, however, are valid only if the methods of surveillance are uniform and reliable across institutions, the authors write.
Michael Y. Lin, MD, MPH, of Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, and colleagues conducted a study to assess institutional variation in performance of traditional central line-associated BSI surveillance. The study included 20 intensive care units among four medical centers (2004-2007). Unit-specific central line-associated BSI rates were calculated for 12-month periods. Infection preventionists (infection control practitioners), blinded to study participation, performed routine prospective surveillance using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions. A computer algorithm reference standard was applied retrospectively using criteria that adapted the same CDC surveillance definitions.
Twenty ICUs in four medical centers contributed 41 twelve-month unit periods, representing 241,518 patient-days (total number of days beds were occupied by patients in the ICUs during the study period) and 165,963 central line-days (total number of days patients had a central line in place in the ICUs during the study period). Across all unit periods, the median infection preventionist-measured central line-associated BSI rate was 3.3 infections per 1,000 central line-days. The median rate determined by the computer algorithm was 9.0 per 1,000 central line-days.
When unit periods were analyzed in aggregate across medical centers, overall correlation between computer algorithm and infection preventionist rates was weak. When stratified by medical center, the researchers found that the point estimates of the correlations varied widely.
Additional analysis demonstrated significant variation among medical centers in the relationship between computer algorithm and expected infection preventionist rates. The medical center that had the lowest rate by traditional surveillance (2.4 infections per 1,000 central line-days) had the highest rate by computer algorithm (12.6 infections per 1,000 central line-days), the authors write.
In this study, we found strong evidence of institutional variation in central line-associated BSI surveillance performance among medical centers. Inconsistent surveillance practice can have a significant effect on the relative ranking of hospitals, which threatens the validity of the metric used by both funding agencies and the public to compare hospitals. As central line-associated BSI rates gain visibility and importancein the form of public report cards, infection reduction campaigns such as Getting to Zero, and financial incentives for reducing rates by private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Serviceswe should seek and test surveillance measures that are as reliable and objective as possible.
Reference: JAMA. 2010;304[18]:2035-2041. Â
Stay prepared and protected with Infection Control Today's newsletter, delivering essential updates, best practices, and expert insights for infection preventionists.
US Withdrawal From UNESCO Signals a Dangerous Step Back for Global Science
July 22nd 2025In a decision heavy with consequence and light on foresight, the US has once again chosen to walk away from UNESCO, leaving behind not just a seat at the table, but a legacy of global scientific leadership that now lies in question.
Breaking the Cycle of Silence: Why Sharps Injuries Go Unreported and What Can Be Done
Published: July 24th 2025 | Updated: July 23rd 2025Despite decades of progress in health care safety, a quiet but dangerous culture still lingers: many health care workers remain afraid to report sharps injuries, fearing blame more than the wound itself.
Telemedicine's Transformative Role in PPE Distribution and Sterile Equipment Management
July 22nd 2025In an era defined by digital transformation and post-pandemic urgency, telemedicine has evolved beyond virtual visits to become a vital infrastructure for delivering personal protective equipment (PPE) and managing sterile supplies. By enabling real-time forecasting, remote quality control, and equitable distribution, telemedicine is revolutionizing how health care systems protect both patients and providers.
Reducing Hidden Risks: Why Sharps Injuries Still Go Unreported
July 18th 2025Despite being a well-known occupational hazard, sharps injuries continue to occur in health care facilities and are often underreported, underestimated, and inadequately addressed. A recent interview with sharps safety advocate Amanda Heitman, BSN, RN, CNOR, a perioperative educational consultant, reveals why change is overdue and what new tools and guidance can help.