Computer Algorithms To Detect Bloodstream Infections

We compared manual and computer-assisted bloodstream infection surveillance for adult inpatients at two hospitals. We identified hospital-acquired, primary, central-venous catheter (CVC)-associated bloodstream infections by using five methods: retrospective, manual record review by investigators; pr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: William E. Trick, Brandon M. Zagorski, Jerome I. Tokars, Michael O. Vernon, Sharon F. Welbel, Mary F. Wisniewski, Chesley Richards, Robert A. Weinstein
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2004-09-01
Series:Emerging Infectious Diseases
Subjects:
Online Access:https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/9/03-0978_article
id doaj-6035198315254f1fa5967d707e395c45
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6035198315254f1fa5967d707e395c452020-11-25T01:11:56ZengCenters for Disease Control and PreventionEmerging Infectious Diseases1080-60401080-60592004-09-011091612162010.3201/eid1009.030978Computer Algorithms To Detect Bloodstream InfectionsWilliam E. TrickBrandon M. ZagorskiJerome I. TokarsMichael O. VernonSharon F. WelbelMary F. WisniewskiChesley RichardsRobert A. WeinsteinWe compared manual and computer-assisted bloodstream infection surveillance for adult inpatients at two hospitals. We identified hospital-acquired, primary, central-venous catheter (CVC)-associated bloodstream infections by using five methods: retrospective, manual record review by investigators; prospective, manual review by infection control professionals; positive blood culture plus manual CVC determination; computer algorithms; and computer algorithms and manual CVC determination. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, plus the kappa statistic (κ) between investigator review and other methods, and we correlated infection rates for seven units. The κ value was 0.37 for infection control review, 0.48 for positive blood culture plus manual CVC determination, 0.49 for computer algorithm, and 0.73 for computer algorithm plus manual CVC determination. Unit-specific infection rates, per 1,000 patient days, were 1.0–12.5 by investigator review and 1.4–10.2 by computer algorithm (correlation r = 0.91, p = 0.004). Automated bloodstream infection surveillance with electronic data is an accurate alternative to surveillance with manually collected data.https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/9/03-0978_articlesurveillancebloodstream infectioninformation systemcomputer data processingalgorithmsinfection control
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author William E. Trick
Brandon M. Zagorski
Jerome I. Tokars
Michael O. Vernon
Sharon F. Welbel
Mary F. Wisniewski
Chesley Richards
Robert A. Weinstein
spellingShingle William E. Trick
Brandon M. Zagorski
Jerome I. Tokars
Michael O. Vernon
Sharon F. Welbel
Mary F. Wisniewski
Chesley Richards
Robert A. Weinstein
Computer Algorithms To Detect Bloodstream Infections
Emerging Infectious Diseases
surveillance
bloodstream infection
information system
computer data processing
algorithms
infection control
author_facet William E. Trick
Brandon M. Zagorski
Jerome I. Tokars
Michael O. Vernon
Sharon F. Welbel
Mary F. Wisniewski
Chesley Richards
Robert A. Weinstein
author_sort William E. Trick
title Computer Algorithms To Detect Bloodstream Infections
title_short Computer Algorithms To Detect Bloodstream Infections
title_full Computer Algorithms To Detect Bloodstream Infections
title_fullStr Computer Algorithms To Detect Bloodstream Infections
title_full_unstemmed Computer Algorithms To Detect Bloodstream Infections
title_sort computer algorithms to detect bloodstream infections
publisher Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
series Emerging Infectious Diseases
issn 1080-6040
1080-6059
publishDate 2004-09-01
description We compared manual and computer-assisted bloodstream infection surveillance for adult inpatients at two hospitals. We identified hospital-acquired, primary, central-venous catheter (CVC)-associated bloodstream infections by using five methods: retrospective, manual record review by investigators; prospective, manual review by infection control professionals; positive blood culture plus manual CVC determination; computer algorithms; and computer algorithms and manual CVC determination. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, plus the kappa statistic (κ) between investigator review and other methods, and we correlated infection rates for seven units. The κ value was 0.37 for infection control review, 0.48 for positive blood culture plus manual CVC determination, 0.49 for computer algorithm, and 0.73 for computer algorithm plus manual CVC determination. Unit-specific infection rates, per 1,000 patient days, were 1.0–12.5 by investigator review and 1.4–10.2 by computer algorithm (correlation r = 0.91, p = 0.004). Automated bloodstream infection surveillance with electronic data is an accurate alternative to surveillance with manually collected data.
topic surveillance
bloodstream infection
information system
computer data processing
algorithms
infection control
url https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/9/03-0978_article
work_keys_str_mv AT williametrick computeralgorithmstodetectbloodstreaminfections
AT brandonmzagorski computeralgorithmstodetectbloodstreaminfections
AT jeromeitokars computeralgorithmstodetectbloodstreaminfections
AT michaelovernon computeralgorithmstodetectbloodstreaminfections
AT sharonfwelbel computeralgorithmstodetectbloodstreaminfections
AT maryfwisniewski computeralgorithmstodetectbloodstreaminfections
AT chesleyrichards computeralgorithmstodetectbloodstreaminfections
AT robertaweinstein computeralgorithmstodetectbloodstreaminfections
_version_ 1725168674742992896