Electronic surveillance systems in infection prevention: Organizational support, program characteristics, and user satisfaction

Abstract

Background The use of electronic surveillance systems (ESSs) is gradually increasing in infection prevention and control programs. Little is known about the characteristics of hospitals that have a ESS, user satisfaction with ESSs, and organizational support for implementation of ESSs. Methods A total of 350 acute care hospitals in California were invited to participate in a Web-based survey; 207 hospitals (59%) agreed to participate. The survey included a description of infection prevention and control department staff, where and how they spent their time, a measure of organizational support for infection prevention and control, and reported experience with ESSs. Results Only 23% (44/192) of responding infection prevention and control departments had an ESS. No statistically significant difference was seen in how and where infection preventionists (IPs) who used an ESS and those who did not spend their time. The 2 significant predictors of whether an ESS was present were score on the Organizational Support Scale (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.18) and hospital bed size (OR, 1.004; 95% CI, 1.00-1.007). Organizational support also was positively correlated with IP satisfaction with the ESS, as measured on the Computer Usability Scale (P = .02). Conclusion Despite evidence that such systems may improve efficiency of data collection and potentially improve patient outcomes, ESSs remain relatively uncommon in infection prevention and control programs. Based on our findings, organizational support appears to be a major predictor of the presence, use, and satisfaction with ESSs in infection prevention and control programs.

Fitting outbreak models to data from many small norovirus outbreaks

“…A 2008–2009 survey estimated that approximately one third of California hospitals used automated surveillance technology to monitor hospital-acquired infections (Halpin et al, 2011). Similarly, a survey of hospitals in the Northeastern United States found that one third of hospitals had an electronic surveillance system in place (Grota et al, 2010). Such systems were used to detect outbreaks, analyze data, and generate reports of hospital-acquired infections (Grota et al, 2010).…”

“…Similarly, a survey of hospitals in the Northeastern United States found that one third of hospitals had an electronic surveillance system in place (Grota et al, 2010). Such systems were used to detect outbreaks, analyze data, and generate reports of hospital-acquired infections (Grota et al, 2010). As several states mandate reporting infection rates of MRSA and many more require some form of reporting of hospital-acquired infections (Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, 2011), many hospitals may have data on the total number of cases in many outbreaks for several pathogens of concern.…”

Clinical decision support systems and infection prevention: To know is not enough

“…In response, IPs have adopted electronically assisted surveillance technology to streamline surveillance responsibilities, with nearly one-fourth of organizations in California using such tools in a 2010 report. 1 Arguably, these surveillance tools emphasize the data collection and surveillance responsibilities of the IP but may have limited utility in actively preventing infections or directly impacting patient care.…”

Hospital infection control units: Staffing, costs, and priorities

“…Information technology solutions (eg, electronic surveillance systems) are designed to support and enhance decision-making in infection control. 22 The role and scope of ICPs has been evolving, with surveillance activities accounting for a large proportion of the infection control workload. 10 The increasing availability and use of information technology solutions have the potential to decrease the time spent on conducting manual surveillance, thereby making infection control teams more efficient and potentially releasing capacity for other initiatives.…”