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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |