Assessing the necessity of the standardized infection ratio for reporting central line-associated bloodstream infections.

This brief article presents results that support the contention that risk adjustment via the standardized infection ratio (SIR) for the reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) may be no more predictive than standard rate adjustments utilizing CLABSIs per central line da...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Daniel M Saman, Kevin T Kavanagh
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/ebe28657baa84f70bef7fa1943936b3f
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:ebe28657baa84f70bef7fa1943936b3f
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:ebe28657baa84f70bef7fa1943936b3f2021-11-18T08:48:27ZAssessing the necessity of the standardized infection ratio for reporting central line-associated bloodstream infections.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0079554https://doaj.org/article/ebe28657baa84f70bef7fa1943936b3f2013-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24223966/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203This brief article presents results that support the contention that risk adjustment via the standardized infection ratio (SIR) for the reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) may be no more predictive than standard rate adjustments utilizing CLABSIs per central line days (i.e., CLABSI rates). Recent data posted on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Hospital Compare website showed that nearly 70% of 1721 reporting hospitals with at least 1000 central line days had five or fewer infections during 2011. These hospitals had 39.3% of the total central line days and a significantly lower SIR than poorer performing hospitals with six or more CLABSIs (p<0.0001). In addition, 19 hospitals are presented which had central line days between 9000 to over 22,000 that also had zero to three CLABSIs. Some of these hospitals were university referral centers and inner city facilities. There was great variation of CLABSI cases among US hospitals. Evidence is mounting that all hospitals should be able to achieve a near zero incidence of CLABSIs and that these infections may in fact be near 'never events', which begs whether risk adjustment with the SIR is needed and whether it adds more information than does rate adjustment using CLABSI rates.Daniel M SamanKevin T KavanaghPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 8, Iss 11, p e79554 (2013)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Daniel M Saman Kevin T Kavanagh Assessing the necessity of the standardized infection ratio for reporting central line-associated bloodstream infections.
description	This brief article presents results that support the contention that risk adjustment via the standardized infection ratio (SIR) for the reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) may be no more predictive than standard rate adjustments utilizing CLABSIs per central line days (i.e., CLABSI rates). Recent data posted on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Hospital Compare website showed that nearly 70% of 1721 reporting hospitals with at least 1000 central line days had five or fewer infections during 2011. These hospitals had 39.3% of the total central line days and a significantly lower SIR than poorer performing hospitals with six or more CLABSIs (p<0.0001). In addition, 19 hospitals are presented which had central line days between 9000 to over 22,000 that also had zero to three CLABSIs. Some of these hospitals were university referral centers and inner city facilities. There was great variation of CLABSI cases among US hospitals. Evidence is mounting that all hospitals should be able to achieve a near zero incidence of CLABSIs and that these infections may in fact be near 'never events', which begs whether risk adjustment with the SIR is needed and whether it adds more information than does rate adjustment using CLABSI rates.
format	article
author	Daniel M Saman Kevin T Kavanagh
author_facet	Daniel M Saman Kevin T Kavanagh
author_sort	Daniel M Saman
title	Assessing the necessity of the standardized infection ratio for reporting central line-associated bloodstream infections.
title_short	Assessing the necessity of the standardized infection ratio for reporting central line-associated bloodstream infections.
title_full	Assessing the necessity of the standardized infection ratio for reporting central line-associated bloodstream infections.
title_fullStr	Assessing the necessity of the standardized infection ratio for reporting central line-associated bloodstream infections.
title_full_unstemmed	Assessing the necessity of the standardized infection ratio for reporting central line-associated bloodstream infections.
title_sort	assessing the necessity of the standardized infection ratio for reporting central line-associated bloodstream infections.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2013
url	https://doaj.org/article/ebe28657baa84f70bef7fa1943936b3f
work_keys_str_mv	AT danielmsaman assessingthenecessityofthestandardizedinfectionratioforreportingcentrallineassociatedbloodstreaminfections AT kevintkavanagh assessingthenecessityofthestandardizedinfectionratioforreportingcentrallineassociatedbloodstreaminfections
_version_	1718421296587472896

Assessing the necessity of the standardized infection ratio for reporting central line-associated bloodstream infections.

Ejemplares similares