OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of nosocomial infections data reported on patients in the intensive-care unit by nine hospitals participating in the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System.

DESIGN: A pilot study was done in two phases to review the charts of selected intensive-care–unit patients who had nosocomial infections reported to the NNIS System. The charts of selected high- and low-risk patients in the same cohort who had no infections reported to the NNIS System also were included. In phase I, trained data collectors reviewed a sample of charts for nosocomial infections. Retrospectively detected infections that matched with previously reported infections were deemed to be true infections. In phase II, two Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) epidemiologists reexamined a sample of charts for which a discrepancy existed. Each sampled infection either was confirmed or disallowed by the epidemiologists. Confirmed infections also were deemed to be true infections. True infections from both phases were used to estimate the accuracy of reported NNIS data by calculating the predictive value positive, sensitivity, and specificity at each major infection site and the “other sites.”

RESULTS: The data collectors examined a total of 1,136 patients' charts in phase I. Among these charts were 611 infections that the study hospitals had reported to the CDC. The data collectors retrospectively matched 474 (78%) of the prospectively identified infections, but also detected 790 infections that were not reported prospectively. Phase II focused on the discrepant infections: the 137 infections that were identified prospectively and reported but not detected retrospectively, and the 790 infections that were detected retrospectively but not reported previously. The CDC epidemiologists examined a sample of 113 of the discrepant reported infections and 369 of the discrepant detected infections, and estimated that 37% of all discrepant reported infections and 43% of all discrepant detected infections were true infections. The predictive value positive for reported bloodstream infections, pneumonia, surgical-site infection, urinary tract infection, and other sites was 87%, 89%, 72%, 92%, and 80%, respectively; the sensitivity was 85%, 68%, 67%, 59%, and 30%, respectively; and the specificity was 98.3%, 97.8%, 97.7%, 98.7%, and 98.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: When the NNIS hospitals in the study reported a nosocomial infection, the infection most likely was a true infection, and they infrequently reported conditions that were not infections. The hospitals also identified and reported most of the nosocomial infections that occurred in the patients they monitored, but accuracy varied by infection site. Primary bloodstream infection was the most accurately identified and reported site. Measures that will be taken to improve the quality of the infection data reported to the NNIS System include reviewing the criteria for definitions of infections and other data fields, enhancing communication between the CDC and NNIS hospitals, and improving the training of surveillance personnel in NNIS hospitals

Immunocompromised patients are at high risk for opportunistic infections. Traditionally, these infections were thought to arise from endogenous reactivation of previously acquired latent infections, and nosocomial transmission therefore was deemed to be so unlikely that no special infection control interventions were needed to prevent transmission in healthcare settings. However, new data have challenged this view and suggest that some opportunistic pathogens are transmissible from one immunosuppressed patient to another. Epidemiological investigations, molecular genotyping, animal studies, and air-sampling experiments lend support to the hypothesis that reinfection with opportunistic pathogens does occur, that airborne transmission is possible, and that nosocomial spread is a plausible explanation for case clusters. Taken together, these observations support the view that some opportunistic infections are exogenous in origin and that additional epidemiological investigations are needed to define the true risk of nosocomial spread and need for isolation.

The scientific basis for claims of efficacy of nosocomial infection surveillance and control programs was established by the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control project. Subsequent analyses have demonstrated nosocomial infection prevention and control programs to be not only clinically effective but also cost-effective. Although governmental and professional organizations have developed a wide variety of useful recommendations and guidelines for infection control, and apart from general guidance provided by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, there are surprisingly few recommendations on infrastructure and essential activities for infection control and epidemiology programs. In April 1996, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America established a consensus panel to develop recommendations for optimal infrastructure and essential activities of infection control and epidemiology programs in hospitals. The following report represents the consensus panel's best assessment of needs for a healthy and effective hospital-based infection control and epidemiology program. The recommendations fall into eight categories: managing critical data and information; setting and recommending policies and procedures; compliance with regulations, guidelines, and accreditation requirements; employee health; direct intervention to prevent transmission of infectious diseases; education and training of healthcare workers; personnel resources; and nonpersonnel resources. The consensus panel used an evidence-based approach and categorized recommendations according to modifications of the scheme developed by the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

During a 6-week period, a medical student conducted an observational study of hand washing and infection control practices in a community teaching hospital. There was no difference in the prevalence of handwashing practices among the three work shifts. The prevalence of hand washing was higher in surgical (56.4%) and medical intensive-care units (39.2%) than in intermediate (30.0%) or general units (22.8%).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of postoperative antibiotic exposure as an indicator of postoperative infection after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

DESIGN: We determined an optimal antibiotic exposure threshold by creating receiver operating characteristic curves.

SETTING:Tertiary healthcare institution (United States); national sample (Israel).

PATIENTS:5,887 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

RESULTS: Postoperative antibiotic exposure with at least 9 days between the first and last dates of antibiotic administration, excluding the first postoperative day, had a sensitivity of 95% (261/276) and specificity of 85% (3,944/4,628) for identifying surgical-site infection, using as a gold standard surgical-site infections identified by conventional prospective surveillance or extrapolated from review of a sample of medical records. In contrast, using the same gold standard for surgical-site infections, the sensitivity of routine prospective surveillance alone was only 60%. The predictive value positive of the defined antibiotic exposure was 28% (261/945) for surgical-site infection and 60% (563/945) for any nosocomial infection. In the Israeli cohort, the sensitivity was 87% (74/85) and the specificity was 82% (735/898).

CONCLUSION:Antibiotic exposure of sufficient duration and timing was more sensitive than conventional methods in detecting nosocomial infection and required substantially less effort to collect. Although the predictive value positive for surgical-site infection was only moderate, the majority of individuals identified this way had a nosocomial infection

Although widely used outside the United States, bacillus of Calmette and Guerin (BCG) immunization generally is given scant consideration in the US literature. We believe that the recent resurgence of tuberculosis, including multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, is a compelling argument for the use of BCG in healthcare workers and that BCG given to those at risk of exposure could be more effective than routine tuberculin skin testing and isoniazid prophylaxis.

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) is a powerful methodology for improving clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction while reducing inefficiency and costs. However, most hospitals in low- and middle-income countries have little experience with CQI methods. Hospital infection prevention is an ideal model for nascent efforts to improve the quality of hospital care because of its proven efficacy in reducing the occurrence of infections that compromise patient outcomes and increase costs. This article describes the design and implementation of a demonstration project to reduce the incidence of surgical-site infections (SSIs) for hospitals with little experience with quality-improvement methods. The project has a high likelihood of producing measurable reductions in SSI rates and hospital costs related to inefficient use of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. Moreover, participating staff will gain experience that can be applied to efforts to improve the quality of other aspects of hospital care.