Relationship between catheter care and catheter-associated urinary tract infection at Japanese acute care hospitals

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. e177-e178
Author(s):  
T. Tsuchida ◽  
K. Makimoto ◽  
S. Yoshida ◽  
S. Ohsako
2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S44-S44
Author(s):  
Mohamad G. Fakih ◽  
M. Todd Greene ◽  
Sarah L. Krein ◽  
Mary AM. Rogers ◽  
David Ratz ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (S1) ◽  
pp. S41-S50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Lo ◽  
Lindsay Nicolle ◽  
David Classen ◽  
Kathleen M. Arias ◽  
Kelly Podgorny ◽  
...  

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention efforts. Refer to the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Infectious Diseases Society of America “Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections” Executive Summary and Introduction and accompanying editorial for additional discussion.1. Burden of CAUTIsa. Urinary tract infection is the most common hospital-acquired infection; 80% of these infections are attributable to an indwelling urethral catheter.b. Twelve to sixteen percent of hospital inpatients will have a urinary catheter at some time during their hospital stay.c. The daily risk of acquisition of urinary infection varies from 3% to 7% when an indwelling urethral catheter remains in situ.2. Outcomes associated with CAUTIa. Urinary tract infection is the most important adverse outcome of urinary catheter use. Bacteremia and sepsis may occur in a small proportion of infected patients.b. Morbidity attributable to any single episode of catheterization is limited, but the high frequency of catheter use in hospitalized patients means that the cumulative burden of CAUTI is substantial.c. Catheter use is also associated with negative outcomes other than infection, including nonbacterial urethral inflammation, urethral strictures, and mechanical trauma.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-368
Author(s):  
Hong Chen ◽  
Joyce Wai Yan Lee ◽  
Kelvin Chung Ho Yu ◽  
Christina Ka Wai Chan ◽  
Andrew Tin Yau Wong ◽  
...  

AbstractWe conducted a survey of 16,914 patients to determine the point prevalence of healthcare-associated catheter-associated urinary tract infection (HA-CAUTI) and urinary catheter care in public hospitals in Hong Kong. Overall HA-CAUTI prevalence was 0.27%. Compliance was generally good, except for documenting the date of planned removal and securing the catheter properly.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S415-S416
Author(s):  
Dana Pepe ◽  
Meghan Maloney ◽  
Vivian Leung ◽  
Adora Harizaj ◽  
David Banach ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The Standardized Infection Ratio (SIR) is a metric used to gauge catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention, both locally and nationally. The device utilization ratio (DUR) is a process metric that captures catheter harm. More recently, the cumulative attributable difference (CAD) was introduced, which identifies the number of excess infections that need to be prevented to reach the desired goal. Our objective was to evaluate these metrics across all acute care hospitals in Connecticut (CT) by facility size. Methods A CAUTI Targeted Assessment for Prevention (TAP) Report for acute care hospitals across CT was generated from 1/1/2018 to December 31/2018, using the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) database. CAUTI events, SIR, DUR, and CAD were compared across all hospitals. The SIR goal of 0.75 was used to calculate the CAD. Hospitals were stratified into large ( >425 beds), medium (250 to 424 beds), and small ( <249 beds) based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project NIS Description of Data Elements, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for urban hospitals in the northeast region. Results A comparison of CAUTI metrics for 29 acute care hospitals across CT is shown in Table 1. Median SIR and DUR were 0.97, 1.02, 0.77, and 22%, 14%, 14.5% for large, medium and small hospitals, respectively. Of the 20 small hospitals, SIR could not be calculated for 5 hospitals, while 2 hospitals had an SIR = 0, as they had no reported infections. Median CAD for large, medium and small hospitals was 6.17, 1.3 and 0.25, respectively. Of note, 40% of small hospitals (J – CC, as in Table 1) had a negative CAD. Interestingly, 5 of these 8 hospitals with a negative CAD had a DUR higher than 16%. Conclusion Based on CT hospital data, metrics like CAD and SIR may be more suitable for larger hospitals or hospitals with higher CAUTI events, whereas DUR may be a more useful metric for smaller hospitals or hospitals with rare events. Hospitals with high SIR and low DUR may represent a population with high-risk catheter use, poor catheter care or higher rates of urine culturing. On the other hand, hospitals with high DUR and low SIR may represent low-risk populations, better catheter care practices or lower rates of urine culturing. Ultimately, we need a combination of metrics to measure preventable catheter harm. Disclosures Louise Dembry, MD, MS, MBA, ReadyDock: Consultant, Stock options.


2016 ◽  
Vol 374 (22) ◽  
pp. 2111-2119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay Saint ◽  
M. Todd Greene ◽  
Sarah L. Krein ◽  
Mary A.M. Rogers ◽  
David Ratz ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document