Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:42:54.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevalence of Hospital-Acquired Infections During Successive Surveillance Surveys Conducted at a University Hospital in The Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

T. E. M. Hopmans ,
H. E. M. Blok ,
A. Troelstra  and
M. J. M. Bonten
T. E. M. Hopmans*
Affiliation:
Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention, Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
H. E. M. Blok
Affiliation:
Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention, Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
M. J. M. Bonten
Affiliation:
Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention, Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands Division of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine and Dermatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Hospital Hygiene & Infection Prevention, HP G04.614, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands (T.E.M.Hopmans@umcutrecht.nl)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To monitor hospital-wide trends in the prevalence of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) in order to identify areas where the risk of infection is increasing.

Methods.

Successive surveillance surveys were conducted twice yearly, from November 2001 until May 2004, to determine the prevalence of HAIs at 2 Dutch hospitals, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria.

Results.

In all, 340 HAIs were observed in 295 (11.1%) of 2,661 patients surveyed. The overall prevalence per survey varied from 10.2% to 15.6%, with no significant differences between successive surveys. In the surgical department, the prevalence of HAIs increased from 10.8 cases per 100 surgeries in November 2001 to 20.4 cases per 100 surgeries in May 2002. Further analysis revealed a high prevalence of surgical site infection among patients who had an orthopedic procedure performed. In the neurology-neurosurgery department, the prevalence increased from 13.0 cases per 100 patients in May 2002 to 26.6 cases per 100 patients in May 2003 and involved several types of infection. Further analysis retrieved exceptionally high incidences of infections associated with cerebrospinal fluid drainage. Specific infection control interventions were developed and implemented in both departments. The total cost of the surveys was estimated to be €9,100 per year.

Conclusion.

Successive performance of surveillance surveys is a simple and cheap method to monitor the prevalence of infection throughout the hospital and appeared instrumental in identifying 2 departments with increased infection rates.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , April 2007 , pp. 459 - 465
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Centers for Disease Control. Public health focus: surveillance, prevention and control of hospital-acquired infections. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1992;41:783–787.Google Scholar
2.Gaynes, R, Richards, C, Edwards, J. Feeding back surveillance data to prevent hospital-acquired infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:295–298.Google Scholar
3.Centers for Disease Control. Monitoring hospital-acquired infections to promote patient safety-United States, 1990-1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2000;49:149–153.Google Scholar
4.The Health Council of The Netherlands. Prevention and control of hospital-acquired infections. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: The Health Council of The Netherlands; 1990.Google Scholar
5.Quality of Health Care Institutions's Gravenhage, The Netherlands:SDU; 1994. Available at: http://www.minvws.nl. Accessed March 15, 2007.Google Scholar
6. Dutch Health Care Inspectorate, Infectiepreventie in ziekenhuizen. Hiaat tussen kennis en gedrag, Den Haag mei 2004. Available at: http://www.igz.nl. Accessed February 28, 2006.Google Scholar
7.Kamp-Hopmans, TEM, Blok, HEM, Troelstra, A, et al.Surveillance for hospital-acquired infections on surgical wards in a Dutch university hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:584–590.Google Scholar
8.Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for hospital-acquired infections. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128–140.Google Scholar
9.Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Martone, WJ, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:606–608.Google Scholar
10.Geubels, ELPE, Mintjes-de Groot, AL, van den Berg, JMJ, de Boer, AS. Preventie van Ziekenhuisinfecties door Surveillance. Component Infecties op de Intensive Care, 1997-1998. RIVM rapport 212200008. Utrecht, The Netherlands; 1999.Google Scholar
11.Oostenbrink, JB, Buijs-Van der Woude, T, van Agthoven, M, Koopmanschap, MA, Rutten, FFH. Unit costs of inpatient hospital days. Pharmacoeconomics 2003;21:263–271.Google Scholar
12.van Splunteren, P, van Evendingen, J, Janssen, S, Minkman, M, Rouppe van der Voort, M, Schouten, L. Postoperatieve wondinfecties. In: Door-breken met resultaten: verbetering van de patiëntenzorg met de doorbraakmethode. Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke van Gorcum; 2003.Google Scholar
13.Edmond, MB. National and International surveillance systems for hospital-acquired infections. In: Wenzel, RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Hospital-Acquired Infections. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Maple Press; 2003:109–119.Google Scholar
14.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1988;37(suppl 5):1–18.Google Scholar
15.Birnbaum, D. How to select improvement projects. In: Mayhall, CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. 3rd edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004:137–145.Google Scholar
16.Lizioli, A, Privitera, G, Alliata, E, et al.Prevalence of hospital-acquired infections in Italy: result from the Lombardy survey in 2000. J Hosp Infect 2003;54:141–148.Google Scholar
17.Vaque, J, Rossello, J, Arribas, JL. Prevalence of hospital-acquired infections in Spain: EPINE study 1990-1997. The EPINE Working Group. J Hosp Infect 1999;43:s105–s111.Google Scholar
18.Klavs, I, Bufon Luznik, T, Skerl, M, et al.for the Slovenian Hospital-Acquired infections Survey Group. Prevalence of and risk factors for hospital-acquired infections in Slovenia: results of the first national survey, 2001. J Hosp Infect 2003;54:149–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Zotti, CM, Messori Loli, G, Charrier, L, et al.Hospital-acquired infections in Italy: a region wide prevalence study. J Hosp Infect 2004;56:142–149.Google Scholar
20.The French Prevalence Survey Study Group. Prevalence of hospital-acquired infections in France: results of the nationwide survey in 1996. J Hosp Infect 2000;46:186–193.Google Scholar
21.Verhoef, J, Beaujean, D, Blok, H, et al.A Dutch approach to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1999;18:461–466.Google Scholar
22.Kirkland, KB, Briggs, JP, Trivette, SL, Wilkinson, WE, Sexton, DJ. The impact of surgical site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:725–730.Google Scholar
23.Zoutman, D, McDonald, S, Vethanayagan, D. Total and attributable costs of surgical-wound infections at a Canadian tertiary care center. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:254–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Geubbels, LPE, van Genugten, MLL, Wille, JC, de Boer, AS. Costs of Surgical Site Infection [thesis]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: University of Utrecht;2002.Google Scholar
25.Geubels, ELPE, Mintjes-de Groot, AL, Berg van den, JMJ, Boer de, AS. An operating surveillance system of surgical-site infections in The Netherlands: results of the PREZIES national surveillance network. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:311–318.Google Scholar