Comparisons of health care–associated infections identification using two mechanisms for public reporting

Stone, Patricia W.; Horan, Teresa C.; Shih, Huai-Che; Mooney-Kane, Cathy; Larson, Elaine

doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2006.11.001

Cited by 43 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, many of these hospitals perceived the process to have misclassified their facility as a hospital with an infection problem [5]. Care must be taken not to relate prevalence data between individual facilities as a measure of quality of care; calculations of a prevalence rate from a point prevalence survey lack precision at the individual hospital level because the rate usually combines HAIs at all sites in the numerator and is not a risk-adjusted measure for comparison among hospitals [43].…”

Section: Investigatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Scope and Magnitude of Hospital‐Associated Infection in the United States: The Value of Prevalence Surveys

Llata¹,

Gaynes²,

Fridkin³

2009

CLIN INFECT DIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health care-associated infections are a major public health concern both in the United States and abroad, contributing to increased morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. As a consequence of changes in health care delivery and increasing demands on infection prevention, targeted surveillance has become common in the United States, focusing on areas of the hospital where a patient's risk for health care-associated infection is greatest, as opposed to hospital-wide surveillance; the latter can be used to estimate the national burden of health care-associated infections. Many countries have shown that prevalence surveys can be used to quantify the burden of disease and to help establish priorities to accomplish national goals of prevention of health care-associated infection. Several different surveillance methods have been used, prohibiting comparisons of results among methods. We address some of these key differences and provide recommendations in areas that should be considered when designing a point prevalence survey in the United States.

show abstract

Section: Investigatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Scope and Magnitude of Hospital‐Associated Infection in the United States: The Value of Prevalence Surveys

Llata¹,

Gaynes²,

Fridkin³

2009

CLIN INFECT DIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of hospital discharge data to evaluate public health surveillance systems is not a new proposition; researchers have demonstrated the utility of such data when evaluating surveillance for infectious [10], [25], non-infectious [26], environmental health outcomes [27]. Nevertheless, the accuracy and completeness of data contained in Medicare, hospital discharge and other administrative databases has been called into question in respect to various infectious diseases [28]–[30]. The extent to which these concerns hold true for gastrointestinal infections is not known.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hospitalization Records as a Tool for Evaluating Performance of Food- and Water-Borne Disease Surveillance Systems: A Massachusetts Case Study

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We outline a framework for evaluating food- and water-borne surveillance systems using hospitalization records, and demonstrate the approach using data on salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis and giardiasis in persons aged ≥65 years in Massachusetts. For each infection, and for each reporting jurisdiction, we generated smoothed standardized morbidity ratios (SMR) and surveillance to hospitalization ratios (SHR) by comparing observed surveillance counts with expected values or the number of hospitalized cases, respectively. We examined the spatial distribution of SHR and related this to the mean for the entire state. Through this approach municipalities that deviated from the typical experience were identified and suspected of under-reporting. Regression analysis revealed that SHR was a significant predictor of SMR, after adjusting for population age-structure. This confirms that the spatial “signal” depicted by surveillance is in part influenced by inconsistent testing and reporting practices since municipalities that reported fewer cases relative to the number of hospitalizations had a lower relative risk (as estimated by SMR). Periodic assessment of SHR has potential in assessing the performance of surveillance systems.

show abstract

“…Based on previous studies of health regulations 32 and experience in hospital-based infection control procedures, 33 these categories were deemed by the researchers as most likely to highlight the types of information of interest to those accessing the database, either to understand what is currently required in a given state or to consider possible regulatory reforms. This categorization was then analyzed from a comparative legal perspective to identify common themes among legislation and/or regulation governing the collection and reporting of HAI, to examine these similarities and differences to understand political context, and, as a result, to uncover general empirical relationships among state legal efforts.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public health law for the collection and reporting of health care–associated infections

Meier

Stone

Gebbie

2008

American Journal of Infection Control

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background State-based laws for reporting of health care-associated infections (HAI) have developed and changed dramatically in recent years, affecting the costs of reporting and impact on infection rates. It is necessary for practitioners of infection control to understand these changing legal frameworks and their application to practice. Methods Employing systematic state-based research, the researchers have documented legislation and administrative regulations for institution-specific HAI reporting, using this information to create a comprehensive resource on state-based laws for mandatory HAI reporting. Results As of August 27, 2007, 24 states have adopted laws requiring reporting of HAI rates, with an additional 7 states currently considering legislation that would require HAI reporting and 19 states employing detailed regulation in the absence of any current legislative authorization specific to HAI. This study documents (1) which states require reporting of HAI and, if so, whether this is done by legislation or administrative regulation; (2) whether the specific HAIs to be reported are identified in state law or codified generally as “diseases of public health importance,” with reporting specified by administrative regulation; and (3) what reporting policies and procedures are detailed in law. Conclusion Through analysis of the collected information, the researchers have examined the degree to which states have modernized their respective public health laws to approach mandatory reporting by way of general legislation regarding “matters of public health importance” and subsequent detailed administrative regulation to specify those matters.

show abstract

Comparisons of health care–associated infections identification using two mechanisms for public reporting

Cited by 43 publications

References 11 publications

Measuring the Scope and Magnitude of Hospital‐Associated Infection in the United States: The Value of Prevalence Surveys

Measuring the Scope and Magnitude of Hospital‐Associated Infection in the United States: The Value of Prevalence Surveys

Hospitalization Records as a Tool for Evaluating Performance of Food- and Water-Borne Disease Surveillance Systems: A Massachusetts Case Study

Public health law for the collection and reporting of health care–associated infections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About