A point prevalence cross-sectional study of healthcare-associated urinary tract infections in six Australian hospitals

Abstract

ObjectivesUrinary tract infections (UTIs) account for over 30% of healthcare-associated infections. The aim of this study was to determine healthcare-associated UTI (HAUTI) and catheter-associated UTI (CAUTI) point prevalence in six Australian hospitals to inform a national point prevalence process and compare two internationally accepted HAUTI definitions. We also described the level and comprehensiveness of clinical record documentation, microbiology laboratory and coding data at identifying HAUTIs and CAUTIs.SettingData were collected from three public and three private Australian hospitals over the first 6 months of 2013.ParticipantsA total of 1109 patients were surveyed. Records of patients of all ages, hospitalised on the day of the point prevalence at the study sites, were eligible for inclusion. Outpatients, patients in adult mental health units, patients categorised as maintenance care type (ie, patients waiting to be transferred to a long-term care facility) and those in the emergency department during the duration of the survey were excluded.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome measures were the HAUTI and CAUTI point prevalence.ResultsOverall HAUTI and CAUTI prevalence was 1.4% (15/1109) and 0.9% (10/1109), respectively. Staphylococcus aureus and Candida species were the most common pathogens. One-quarter (26.3%) of patients had a urinary catheter and fewer than half had appropriate documentation. Eight of the 15 patients ascertained to have a HAUTI based on clinical records (6 being CAUTI) were coded by the medical records department with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code for UTI diagnosis. The Health Protection Agency Surveillance definition had a positive predictive value of 91.67% (CI 64.61 to 98.51) compared against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition.ConclusionsThese study results provide a foundation for a national Australian point prevalence study and inform the development and implementation of targeted healthcare-associated infection surveillance more broadly.

Variation in the prevalence of urinary catheters: a profile of National Health Service patients in England

“…Variation in catheter prevalence between patient groups, settings and specialties may exist with studies reporting a catheterisation rate of 12%-26% among hospitalised patients. [1][2][3][4] Yet surprisingly limited information exists with respect to the variation in catheter prevalence. While potentially beneficial for some patients, urinary catheters may be inserted without robust clinical indication in 30%-50% of cases.…”

“…Variation in the prevalence of urinary catheters: a profile of National HealthService patients in EnglandDavid Clifford Shackley, 1 Cameron Whytock, 2 Gareth Parry,3 Laurence Clarke,1 Charles Vincent,4 Abigail Harrison, 2 Amber John, 2 Lloyd Provost, 5 Maxine Power 2 To view these files please visit the journal online (http:// dx. doi.…”

“It's easier to stick a tube in”: a qualitative study to understand clinicians’ individual decisions to place urinary catheters in acute medical care

“…Recent point prevalence surveys in Europe,1 the USA4 and Australia5 indicate that 17–25% of patients in acute care have an IUC placed. Numerous attempts have been made to reduce use with some success, but the levels of IUCs considered to be inappropriate remain high.…”

A Comparison Between Foley and Nelatone Urinary Catheters in Causing Urinary Tract Infection in Animal Models

“…In several studies carried out on the incidence of nosocomial infections, urinary tract infections (UTI) were the most frequent and consisted more than 40% of all hospital infections (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). In spite of the broad spectrum antibiotics use, UTIs are still a cause of considerable morbidity and mortality in the modern medicine.…”