Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T11:51:09.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Infection: Device Utilization Ratio as a Performance Measure for Urinary Catheter Harm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2015

Mohamad G. Fakih,
Carolyn V. Gould,
Barbara W. Trautner,
Jennifer Meddings,
Russell N. Olmsted,
Sarah L. Krein and
Sanjay Saint
Mohamad G. Fakih*
Affiliation:
St. John Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, MichiganWayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
Carolyn V. Gould
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Barbara W. Trautner
Affiliation:
Houston VA Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TexasSection of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine and Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Jennifer Meddings
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Russell N. Olmsted
Affiliation:
Infection Prevention and Control, Unified Clinical Organization, Trinity Health, Livonia, Michigan
Sarah L. Krein
Affiliation:
VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Sanjay Saint
Affiliation:
VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MichiganDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
*
Address correspondence to Mohamad G. Fakih, MD, MPH, Medical Director, Infection Prevention and Control, St. John Hospital and Medical Center, 19251 Mack Ave, Suite 190, Grosse Pointe Woods, MI 48236 (Mohamad.Fakih@stjohn.org).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is considered a reasonably preventable event in the hospital setting, and it has been included in the US Department of Health and Human Services National Action Plan to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections. While multiple definitions for measuring CAUTI exist, each has important limitations, and understanding these limitations is important to both clinical practice and policy decisions. The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) surveillance definition, the most frequently used outcome measure for CAUTI prevention efforts, has limited clinical correlation and does not necessarily reflect noninfectious harms related to the catheter. We advocate use of the device utilization ratio (DUR) as an additional performance measure for potential urinary catheter harm. The DUR is patient-centered and objective and is currently captured as part of NHSN reporting. Furthermore, these data are readily obtainable from electronic medical records. The DUR also provides a more direct reflection of improvement efforts focused on reducing inappropriate urinary catheter use.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37(3):327–333

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , March 2016, pp. 327 - 333
Copyright
© 2015 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

BACKGROUND

Preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is a national safety priority and has been adopted as a metric by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to optimize outcomes. 1 – Reference Fakih, George, Edson, Goeschel and Saint 3 The risk of developing a CAUTI starts upon insertion and increases daily until catheter removal; this risk is also affected by patient characteristics.Reference Chenoweth and Saint 4 , Reference Meddings and Saint 5 In addition to urinary tract infection (UTI), the presence of the urinary catheter may lead to unnecessary urine cultures, associated inappropriate use of antimicrobials,Reference Cope, Cevallos, Cadle, Darouiche, Musher and Trautner 6 colonization and outbreaks of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative organisms,Reference Jacob, Klein and Laxminarayan 7 , Reference Sievert, Ricks and Edwards 8 and Clostridium difficile infection.Reference Drekonja, Rector, Cutting and Johnson 9 Noninfectious complications such as urethral and bladder traumaReference Hollingsworth, Rogers and Krein 10 and impaired mobilityReference Saint, Lipsky and Goold 11 are also salient patient harms related to the catheter. Our objectives are to discuss the current outcome measures used to evaluate CAUTI events and to address their strengths and limitations in the context of both clinical practice and healthcare policy. We conclude by emphasizing the benefits of using the device utilization ratio (DUR) as an additional performance measure that reflects the risk of both infectious and noninfectious harm associated with the catheter.

Outcomes Currently Used to Evaluate CAUTI

Several different definitions of CAUTI are currently in use for epidemiological surveillance, clinical diagnosis, and billing (Table 1).

TABLE 1

The National Health Safety Network and Infectious Diseases Society of America Claims-Based Definitions for Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI) and Clinician Diagnosis

NOTE. CFU/mL, colony-forming units per milliliter.

Surveillance-based criteria for CAUTI

The most frequently used surveillance definition of CAUTI comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). 12 The NHSN CAUTI definition applies to patients with an indwelling urinary catheter in place for >2 calendar days on the day of the event and who have the catheter in place on the day of or the day before the event. The catheter-associated symptomatic UTI (SUTI) definition requires the application of different algorithms to identify CAUTI events that draw on a combination of clinical symptoms or signs, the result of the urine culture, and the temporal use of an indwelling urinary catheter. The algorithms rely on the presence of no more than 2 species of microorganisms in the urine, in addition to other elements such as fever (regardless of the cause) or localized findings. Starting in January 2015, the SUTI definition excluded urine analysis findings, nonbacterial organisms, and any quantitated urine cultures with <100,000 colony-forming units (CFUs) per milliliter.

CAUTI as defined by clinical practice guidelines

The clinical definition of CAUTI published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) is based on clinical and laboratory findings, with the exclusion of other sources of infection.Reference Hooton, Bradley and Cardenas 13 The IDSA clinical definition incorporates patients with a urinary catheter (including indwelling and non-indwelling catheters) or those who have had a catheter discontinued within 48 hours prior to signs or symptoms. The clinical definition has 3 components: (1) significant amount of bacteriuria defined as ≥103 CFU/mL; (2) signs or symptoms of a urinary tract infection (as defined below); and (3) no other identified source of infection.Reference Hooton, Bradley and Cardenas 13 Signs and symptoms that may be compatible with CAUTI include new fever, chills, altered mentation, or malaise with no other recognized cause. In addition, flank pain, costovertebral angle tenderness, acute hematuria, and pelvic discomfort are considered local findings compatible with the diagnosis. Urinary frequency, dysuria, and urgency are included if the catheter has been removed within 48 hours. Many of these signs and symptoms are non-specific and make the clinical CAUTI definition a diagnosis by exclusion.Reference Hooton, Bradley and Cardenas 13 Furthermore, the IDSA guidelines exclude both the urinalysis results and the type of organism from the diagnosis of CAUTI.

Claims-based diagnosis of CAUTI

CAUTI events are also defined using administrative discharge data, which are submitted as claims to request payment. These data are used to identify UTIs as hospital-acquired and catheter-associated and thus not eligible as payable comorbidities. 14 , 15 Administrative data-derived hospital-acquired CAUTI rates are much lower than expected (0.14% of hospitalizations) according to medical record reviews and epidemiologic surveillance for CAUTIs.Reference Meddings, Reichert, Rogers, Saint, Stephansky and McMahon 16 , Reference Meddings, Saint and McMahon 17 A recent systematic review on the accuracy of administrative code data reported low sensitivity but high specificity for diagnosing CAUTI.Reference Goto, Ohl, Schweizer and Perencevich 18 Although UTIs are commonly listed as diagnoses in discharge data, very few are identified in administrative data as CAUTIs because the documentation generated by clinicians that hospital coders must rely upon for generating diagnosis codes rarely includes explicit descriptions of UTIs as being catheter-associated.Reference Meddings, Reichert, Dueweke and Rhyner 19

Clinician-based diagnosis of CAUTI

In clinical practice, clinicians often obtain urine cultures based on findings that are not consistent with evidence or guidelines, such as urine color, cloudiness, and odor.Reference Hooton, Bradley and Cardenas 13 These findings are non-specific for the presence or absence of organisms in the urine. Furthermore, clinicians often do not distinguish between asymptomatic bacteriuria and symptomatic CAUTI in their catheterized patients.Reference Cope, Cevallos, Cadle, Darouiche, Musher and Trautner 6 , Reference Lin, Bhusal, Horwitz, Shelburne and Trautner 20 Pyuria in particular often drives inappropriate antimicrobial use and misdiagnosis of asymptomatic bacteriuria as CAUTI.Reference Cope, Cevallos, Cadle, Darouiche, Musher and Trautner 6 , Reference Trautner, Petersen, Hysong, Horwitz, Kelly and Naik 21 Many clinicians treat patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria,Reference Cope, Cevallos, Cadle, Darouiche, Musher and Trautner 6 even in patient groups with high risk for developing Clostridium difficile infection.Reference Shaughnessy, Amundson, Kuskowski, DeCarolis, Johnson and Drekonja 22

Results from the Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System, which captures adverse events in a sample of patients admitted to US hospitals, were recently reported regarding clinician-diagnosed CAUTI for patients with specific diagnoses or surgeries over the period 2005–2011.Reference Wang, Eldridge and Metersky 23 Clinician-diagnosed CAUTI was defined as an event in a patient who either had an indwelling catheter or underwent intermittent catheterization during their inpatient stay, where the physician made the diagnosis of UTI and ordered antimicrobials.Reference Wang, Eldridge and Metersky 23 Physicians diagnosed CAUTI in ~5% of patients exposed to urinary catheterization for different primary diagnoses, whereas the NHSN CAUTI rate in the medical–surgical units in acute care hospitals averaged <1.5 events per 1,000 catheter days during a similar time period. Reference Dudeck, Horan and Peterson 24 With a national inpatient average length of stay of 4–5 days, CAUTI events are much more prevalent based on a clinician-diagnosis compared to the NHSN-based definition.

Limitations of the Outcomes Currently Used to Measure CAUTI

The optimal definition for CAUTI used in quality improvement efforts is one that only captures true instances of disease for which treatment is recommended, thus serving both clinical and surveillance needs. At present, all of the available definitions suffer from substantial limitations. For example, the IDSA definition is based on excluding other sources of potential infection and relies on subjective criteria.Reference Hooton, Bradley and Cardenas 13 Clinician practice often does not follow these guidelines and may be driven instead by perceived risks, such as patient characteristics (older age), types of organisms (Gram-negative organisms on urine culture), and the presence of pyuria.Reference Cope, Cevallos, Cadle, Darouiche, Musher and Trautner 6 , Reference Trautner, Petersen, Hysong, Horwitz, Kelly and Naik 21 Clinicians often treat asymptomatic bacteriuria as a UTI,Reference Cope, Cevallos, Cadle, Darouiche, Musher and Trautner 6 , Reference Lin, Bhusal, Horwitz, Shelburne and Trautner 20 as a positive urine culture is a strong trigger for antimicrobial use even without evidence of infection.Reference Leis, Rebick and Daneman 25 Claims-based CAUTI is associated with very poor sensitivity, underestimating the number of events. Only the NHSN definition, a national measure used for quality improvement initiatives, is based on objective criteria, which makes it attractive for public reporting and comparison over time.

Limitations of the NHSN CAUTI definition, criteria, and summary measure in evaluating outcomes

Although the NHSN CAUTI measure is the measure most widely used to evaluate CAUTI nationally, it also has several limitations. First, case finding, using the previous NHSN CAUTI definition, is restricted by low positive predictive value when compared with clinical CAUTI diagnoses.Reference Al-Qas Hanna, Sambirska, Iyer, Szpunar and Fakih 26 In one study, only 35% and 62% of cases fitting the NHSN definition were considered CAUTIs when evaluated by infectious diseases specialists and treating physicians, respectively.Reference Al-Qas Hanna, Sambirska, Iyer, Szpunar and Fakih 26 Moreover, some NHSN-defined CAUTIs may not merit clinical treatment, particularly those diagnosed on the basis of fever alone, as the fever might actually be caused by a nonurinary etiology. Refinements in the NHSN criteria enacted January 2015, excluding funguria and lower urine-culture colony counts, may improve the positive predictive value of the definition for detecting clinically relevant events. A more clinically relevant NHSN definition will be more accepted and thus support efforts to reduce CAUTI.

A second limitation of the surveillance definition is the potential for underreporting of CAUTI events. Validation of reported CAUTI outcomes by CMS is also in progress, a process that has its own constraints,Reference Fortuna, Brenneman, Storli, Birnbaum and Brown 27 but may result in improved compliance by hospitals reporting these to NHSN. The Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) acknowledges the limitations of surveillance definitions when evaluating clinical disease and recommends that reported data be systematically validated.Reference Talbot, Bratzler and Carrico 28 Developing electronic means to capture NHSN CAUTI would reduce reporter subjectivity and also eliminate the inherent bias of self-reporting.Reference Trautner, Patterson and Petersen 29 An electronically accessible definition could be based upon urinary catheter presence, associated bacteriuria, and fever; such a definition would capture more than 90% of the currently identified NHSN CAUTI cases.Reference Al-Qas Hanna, Sambirska, Iyer, Szpunar and Fakih 26

Third, NHSN-defined CAUTI events may be influenced by the prevalence of fever and the frequency of urine culture collection in a given location, both of which are critical elements for case identification.Reference Al-Qas Hanna, Sambirska, Iyer, Szpunar and Fakih 26 For example, the NHSN reported that the pooled mean CAUTI rate for neurosurgical intensive care units (ICUs) (high fever prevalence) is 5.3 per 1,000 catheter days, 3 times greater than the mean CAUTI rate of medical–surgical ICUs with >15 beds.Reference Dudeck, Edwards and Allen-Bridson 30 Furthermore, seasonal influenza, often associated with admissions to ICUs for febrile patients with severe infection, may lead to an increase in NHSN-defined CAUTI rates. In addition to patient-specific risk factors (eg, fever prevalence or duration of catheter use), provider- or facility-specific practices (eg, reflex urine culturing triggered by fever or abnormal urinalysis) may result in higher NHSN-defined CAUTI rates.Reference Al-Qas Hanna, Sambirska, Iyer, Szpunar and Fakih 26 , Reference Golob, Claridge and Sando 31 The presence of fever leads clinicians to obtain urine cultures,Reference Hartley, Valley and Kuhn 32 resulting in an increase in detection of patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria who may not have clinical CAUTI.

Fourth, the NHSN reliance on catheter days as the denominator for CAUTI rates makes it challenging in some situations to measure the impact of specific quality improvement efforts focusing on reducing device use. Interventions mainly focusing on device avoidance, such as an intervention in the emergency department to prevent inappropriate placement,Reference Fakih, Heavens, Grotemeyer, Szpunar, Groves and Hendrich 33 may lead to selecting a smaller population with higher risk for infection, resulting in a paradoxical increase or no change in NHSN CAUTI rates.Reference Wright, Kharasch, Beaumont, Peterson and Robicsek 34 , Reference Fakih, Greene and Kennedy 35 A population-based CAUTI rate (calculated as the number of CAUTI events divided by the total number of patient days multiplied by 10,000) factors in the effect of catheter avoidance on the entire population and may better reflect the success of such efforts, especially for the same unit or facility over time, as it accounts for both the change in device use and the change in device infection risk.Reference Fakih, Greene and Kennedy 35

Despite the limitations of the NHSN measure, this measure is especially useful for evaluating CAUTI over time, particularly for units with stable device utilization and urine culturing practices. This measure is enhanced by using the standardized infection ratio, which adjusts for patient mix by type and size of patient care location, and hospital affiliation with a medical school. However, following trends nationally over time has been challenged by successive definition modifications, refinements, and clarifications as well as uptake in reporting as a result of state and national reporting mandates. Further refinements to the NHSN CAUTI measure to improve standardization of reporting, along with implementation of electronic surveillance, will facilitate monitoring of infectious complications associated with the urinary catheter. In addition to monitoring CAUTI, monitoring a device-use performance measure might serve as a useful way to capture the broader potential for catheter harm.

What is the Ideal Performance Measure to Assess Potential Catheter Harm?

To date, the majority of interventions leading to a successful reduction in CAUTI (with different definitions used) have focused on reducing urinary catheter use, either by shortening duration or avoiding placement.Reference Meddings, Rogers, Krein, Fakih, Olmsted and Saint 36 The main outcome focus has been CAUTI reduction, rather than avoiding catheter-associated harm. Other infection-related events (eg, inappropriate antimicrobial use, antimicrobial resistance, and Clostridium difficile infection) and noninfectious complications,Reference Hollingsworth, Rogers and Krein 10 such as urethral damage, pain, or inadvertent catheter removal, have received limited attention. Importantly, the catheter may act as “a 1-point restraint,” limiting the patient’s mobility.Reference Saint, Lipsky and Goold 11

While the urinary catheter use measure has traditionally been regarded as a process measure when evaluating CAUTI risk, it serves as a performance measure (both process and outcome measure) for potential “catheter harm” (Table 2). The urinary catheter device utilization ratio, calculated by dividing the number of indwelling catheter-days by patient days on the same unit, may be adjusted for variables currently reported to NHSN, including hospital demographics, such as size and teaching status, as well as unit type. The CDC is evaluating methods for risk adjustment of the device utilization ratio in an effort to develop a quality metric that may be amenable to interfacility comparisons. These efforts may also facilitate development of target device utilization ratios for different patient care locations. The device utilization ratio provides additional benefits in evaluating the population at risk for device-related infection.Reference Wright, Kharasch, Beaumont, Peterson and Robicsek 34 , Reference Fakih, Greene and Kennedy 35 The current NHSN defined CAUTI rate uses catheter days for a denominator and does not distinguish between a hospital with a low or a high device utilization ratio for the same rate. A unit with a high device utilization ratio may have the same CAUTI rate as one with a lower ratio, despite having more CAUTI events. Finally, the device utilization ratio is easily obtainable from electronic medical recordsReference Woeltje, Lin, Klompas, Wright, Zuccotti and Trick 37 and is less susceptible to reporting bias. The device utilization ratio is the most patient-centered measure (in contrast to being event centered) because it has the potential to evaluate the overall risks to the patient associated with the catheter.

TABLE 2

Infectious and Noninfectious Harms Associated with Urinary Catheters

While device utilization provides a global measure of potential catheter harm, it does have limitations. The device utilization ratio does not distinguish between the number of catheter insertions and the duration of catheterization. The risk of urinary tract infection is likely not evenly spread throughout the life cycle of the catheter,Reference Meddings and Saint 5 with a greater risk the longer the catheter is in place. The incidence of bacteriuria is related to duration of catheter useReference Garibaldi, Mooney, Epstein and Britt 38 ; for example, the risk of bacteriuria in a patient with an indwelling catheter for 10 days may not be the same as the risk to 5 patients with catheter use of 2 days each. A potential complementary measure, also easily captured using data entered into electronic medical records, is to assess the rate of catheter insertions per patient admission. Furthermore, the device utilization ratio does not predict the proportion of appropriately used catheters, although a reduction over time is likely correlated with improvement. Reference Miller, Krein and Fowler 39 Prior to implementation, evaluation of a proposed risk-adjusted device utilization metric with regard to usability as a quality metric and association with appropriateness is needed.

With all of the changes in the national approach to patient safety, it is important to consider a measure that reflects the multiple risks and harms associated with urinary catheters, including CAUTI. Expanding beyond traditional surveillance that is event-specific to additional performance measures may enable the evaluation of multiple risks to patient harm and is consistent with the statement by Fridkin and Olmsted: “Surveillance systems must be able to evolve in response to ever changing needs of the communities and society they serve.”Reference Fridkin and Olmsted 40 A standardized measure of device utilization can serve as a performance metric that is objective, amenable to electronic reporting, and correlates with risk of both infectious and non-infectious harms associated with the urinary catheter.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Financial support. This project was supported by a contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant no. HHSA290201000025I/HHSA29032001T).

Potential conflicts of interest. M.G.F., S.S., S.K., and J.M. report receiving support for involvement in the “On the CUSP: Stop CAUTI” initiative. M.G.F. reports receiving support from the Ascension Health Hospital Engagement Network effort to prevent healthcare-associated infections; and support from Michigan Health and Hospital Association Hospital Engagement Network to reduce CAUTI. C.V.G. reports no conflicts of interest. B.W.T. reports support from the Department of Veterans Affairs (grant no. VA RRP 12-433) and the National Institutes of Health (grant no. NIH DK092293), and the Agency for Healthcare Research in Quality (AHRQ Safety Program for Long-Term Care: Preventing CAUTI and Other HAIs). J.M.’s research is funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant nos. 1K08HS019767 and 1R010HS018344. R.N.O. receives honoraria from Health Research & Educational Trust as extended faculty and as a member of Ethicon, Inc., Speakers’ Bureau. He also is a consultant to Joint Commission Resources and Premier, Inc. S.K. reports support from the Department of Veterans Affairs (grant no. 1 I01 HX001101-01). Additionally, S.S. reports that he is on the medical advisory boards of Doximity and Jvion.

DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

References

REFERENCES

1. National Action Plan to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: Road Map to Elimination. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website. http://www.health.gov/hcq/prevent_hai.asp. Accessed on July 4, 2015.Google Scholar
2. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and Fiscal Year 2014 rates; quality reporting requirements for specific providers; hospital conditions of participation; payment policies related to patient status. Final rules. Fed Regist 2013;78:50495–51040.Google Scholar
3. Fakih, MG, George, CM, Edson, BS, Goeschel, CA, Saint, S. Implementing a national program to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infection: a quality improvement collaboration of state hospital associations, academic medical centers, professional societies, and governmental agencies. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:1048–1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Chenoweth, CE, Saint, S. Urinary tract infections. Infect Dis Clin N Am 2011;25:103–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Meddings, J, Saint, S. Disrupting the life cycle of the urinary catheter. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:1291–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Cope, M, Cevallos, ME, Cadle, RM, Darouiche, RO, Musher, DM, Trautner, BW. Inappropriate treatment of catheter-associated asymptomatic bacteriuria in a tertiary care hospital. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:1182–1188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Jacob, JT, Klein, E, Laxminarayan, R, et al. Vital signs: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. MMWR 2013;62:165–170.Google Scholar
8. Sievert, DM, Ricks, P, Edwards, JR, et al. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009–2010. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Drekonja, DM, Rector, TS, Cutting, A, Johnson, JR. Urinary tract infection in male veterans: treatment patterns and outcomes. Arch Intern Med 2013;173:62–68.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Hollingsworth, JM, Rogers, MAM, Krein, SL, et al. Determining the noninfectious complications of indwelling urethral catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:401–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Saint, S, Lipsky, BA, Goold, SD. Indwelling urinary catheters: a one-point restraint? Ann Intern Med 2002;137:125–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. National Healthcare Safety Network. Surveillance for Urinary Tract infections. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/acute-care-hospital/CAUTI/index.html. Accessed on July 4, 2015.Google Scholar
13. Hooton, TM, Bradley, SF, Cardenas, DD, et al. Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2010;50:625–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Hospital-Acquired Conditions. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/HospitalAcqCond/Hospital-Acquired_Conditions.html. Accessed on July 4, 2015.Google Scholar
15. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare program: changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2009 rates; payments for graduate medical education in certain emergency situations; changes to disclosure of physician ownership in hospitals and physician self-referral rules; updates to the long-term care prospective payment system; updates to certain IPPS-excluded hospitals; and collection of information regarding financial relationships between hospitals. Final rules. Fed Regist 2008;73:48433–49084.Google Scholar
16. Meddings, JA, Reichert, H, Rogers, MA, Saint, S, Stephansky, J, McMahon, LF. Effect of nonpayment for hospital-acquired, catheter-associated urinary tract infection: a statewide analysis. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:305–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Meddings, J, Saint, S, McMahon, LF Jr. Hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infection: documentation and coding issues may reduce financial impact of Medicare’s new payment policy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:627–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Goto, M, Ohl, ME, Schweizer, ML, Perencevich, EN. Accuracy of administrative code data for the surveillance of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2014;58:688–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Meddings, J, Reichert, H, Dueweke, E, Rhyner, J. Issues regarding identification of urinary catheter use from medical records. In Battles JB, Cleeman JI, Kahn KK, Weinberg DA, ed. Advances in the Prevention and Control of Healthcare-Associated Infections. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014.Google Scholar
20. Lin, E, Bhusal, Y, Horwitz, D, Shelburne, SA 3rd, Trautner, BW. Overtreatment of enterococcal bacteriuria. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:33–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Trautner, BW, Petersen, NJ, Hysong, SJ, Horwitz, D, Kelly, PA, Naik, AD. Overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria: identifying provider barriers to evidence-based care. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:653–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Shaughnessy, MK, Amundson, WH, Kuskowski, MA, DeCarolis, DD, Johnson, JR, Drekonja, DM. Unnecessary antimicrobial use in patients with current or recent Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:109–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Wang, Y, Eldridge, N, Metersky, ML, et al. National Trends in Patient Safety for Four Common Conditions, 2005–2011. N Engl J Med 2014;370:341–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Dudeck, MA, Horan, TC, Peterson, KD, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network report, data summary for 2011, device-associated module. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:286–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Leis, JA, Rebick, GW, Daneman, N, et al. Reducing antimicrobial therapy for asymptomatic bacteriuria among noncatheterized inpatients: a proof-of-concept study. Clin Infect Dis 2014;58:980–983.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Al-Qas Hanna, F, Sambirska, O, Iyer, S, Szpunar, S, Fakih, MG. Clinician practice and the National Healthcare Safety Network definition for the diagnosis of catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:1173–1177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Fortuna, JA, Brenneman, WA, Storli, S, Birnbaum, D, Brown, KL. The current state of validating the accuracy of clinical data reporting: lessons to be learned from quality and process improvement scientists. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:611–614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Talbot, TR, Bratzler, DW, Carrico, RM, et al. Public reporting of health care-associated surveillance data: recommendations from the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:631–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Trautner, BW, Patterson, JE, Petersen, NJ, et al. Quality gaps in documenting urinary catheter use and infectious outcomes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:793–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Dudeck, MA, Edwards, JR, Allen-Bridson, K, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network report, data summary for 2013, Device-Associated Module. Am J Infect Control 2015;43:206–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Golob, JF Jr, Claridge, JA, Sando, MJ, et al. Fever and leukocytosis in critically ill trauma patients: it’s not the urine. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2008;9:49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Hartley, S, Valley, S, Kuhn, L, et al. Inappropriate testing for urinary tract infection in hospitalized patients: an opportunity for improvement. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:1204–1207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Fakih, MG, Heavens, M, Grotemeyer, J, Szpunar, SM, Groves, C, Hendrich, A. Avoiding potential harm by improving appropriateness of urinary catheter use in 18 emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med 2014;63:761–768.e761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Wright, M-O, Kharasch, M, Beaumont, JL, Peterson, LR, Robicsek, A. Reporting catheter-associated urinary tract infections: denominator matters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:635–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Fakih, MG, Greene, MT, Kennedy, EH, et al. Introducing a population-based outcome measure to evaluate the effect of interventions to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:359–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Meddings, J, Rogers, MA, Krein, SL, Fakih, MG, Olmsted, RN, Saint, S. Reducing unnecessary urinary catheter use and other strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection: an integrative review. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;23:277–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Woeltje, KF, Lin, MY, Klompas, M, Wright, MO, Zuccotti, G, Trick, WE. Data requirements for electronic surveillance of healthcare-associated infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:1083–1091.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Garibaldi, RA, Mooney, BR, Epstein, BJ, Britt, MR. An evaluation of daily bacteriologic monitoring to identify preventable episodes of catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Infect Control 1982;3:466–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Miller, BL, Krein, SL, Fowler, KE, et al. A multimodal intervention to reduce urinary catheter use and associated infection at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:631–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Fridkin, SK, Olmsted, RN. Meaningful measure of performance: a foundation built on valid, reproducible findings from surveillance of health care-associated infections. Am J Infect Control 2011;39:87–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

TABLE 1The National Health Safety Network and Infectious Diseases Society of America Claims-Based Definitions for Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI) and Clinician Diagnosis

Figure 1

TABLE 2Infectious and Noninfectious Harms Associated with Urinary Catheters