scholarly journals Mucosal Barrier Injury Laboratory-Confirmed Bloodstream Infections (MBI-LCBI): Descriptive Analysis of Data Reported to National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), 2013

2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Epstein ◽  
Isaac See ◽  
Jonathan R. Edwards ◽  
Shelley S. Magill ◽  
Nicola D. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Acute Care ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Mucosal Barrier ◽  
National Healthcare ◽  
National Healthcare Safety Network ◽  
Mucosal Barrier Injury ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Clabsi Rate

OBJECTIVESTo determine the impact of mucosal barrier injury laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infections (MBI-LCBIs) on central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates during the first year of MBI-LCBI reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN)DESIGNDescriptive analysis of 2013 NHSN dataSETTINGSelected inpatient locations in acute care hospitalsMETHODSA descriptive analysis of MBI-LCBI cases was performed. CLABSI rates per 1,000 central-line days were calculated with and without the inclusion of MBI-LCBIs in the subset of locations reporting ≥1 MBI-LCBI, and in all locations (regardless of MBI-LCBI reporting) to determine rate differences overall and by location type.RESULTSFrom 418 locations in 252 acute care hospitals reporting ≥1 MBI-LCBIs, 3,162 CLABSIs were reported; 1,415 (44.7%) met the MBI-LCBI definition. Among these locations, removing MBI-LCBI from the CLABSI rate determination produced the greatest CLABSI rate decreases in oncology (49%) and ward locations (45%). Among all locations reporting CLABSI data, including those reporting no MBI-LCBIs, removing MBI-LCBI reduced rates by 8%. Here, the greatest decrease was in oncology locations (38% decrease); decreases in other locations ranged from 1.2% to 4.2%.CONCLUSIONSAn understanding of the potential impact of removing MBI-LCBIs from CLABSI data is needed to accurately interpret CLABSI trends over time and to inform changes to state and federal reporting programs. Whereas the MBI-LCBI definition may have a large impact on CLABSI rates in locations where patients with certain clinical conditions are cared for, the impact of MBI-LCBIs on overall CLABSI rates across inpatient locations appears to be more modest.Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;37(1):2–7

scholarly journals Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections During the Early Months of 2020, National Healthcare Safety Network

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Prachi R. Patel ◽  
Lindsey M. Weiner-Lastinger ◽  
Margaret A. Dudeck ◽  
Lucy V. Fike ◽  
David T. Kuhar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Control ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Geographic Area ◽  
Central Line ◽  
National Healthcare ◽  
National Healthcare Safety Network ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
Location Type

Abstract Data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) were analyzed to understand the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) in acute care hospitals. Descriptive analysis of the Standardized Infection Ratio (SIR) was conducted by locations, location type, geographic area, and bed size.

scholarly journals Mucosal Barrier Injury Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections: What Is the Impact of Standard Prevention Bundles?

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Shaklee Sammons ◽  
Rachael Ross ◽  
Susan Ditaranto ◽  
Margaret Gilman ◽  
Anne Reilly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Mucosal Barrier ◽  
Mucosal Barrier Injury ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Mucosal Barrier Injury Central-Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections: What is the Impact of Standard Prevention Bundles?

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (11) ◽  
pp. 1385-1387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana M. Vaughan ◽  
Rachael Ross ◽  
Margaret M. Gilman ◽  
Lauren Satchell ◽  
Susan Ditaranto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Mucosal Barrier ◽  
Mucosal Barrier Injury ◽  
The Impact

Pathogens causing central-line–associated bloodstream infections in acute-care hospitals—United States, 2011–2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon A. Novosad ◽  
Lucy Fike ◽  
Margaret A. Dudeck ◽  
Katherine Allen-Bridson ◽  
Jonathan R. Edwards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Care ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Incidence Density ◽  
Targeted Prevention ◽  
Prevention Strategies ◽  
National Healthcare ◽  
National Healthcare Safety Network ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Over Time

AbstractObjective:To describe pathogen distribution and rates for central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) from different acute-care locations during 2011–2017 to inform prevention efforts.Methods:CLABSI data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) were analyzed. Percentages and pooled mean incidence density rates were calculated for a variety of pathogens and stratified by acute-care location groups (adult intensive care units [ICUs], pediatric ICUs [PICUs], adult wards, pediatric wards, and oncology wards).Results:From 2011 to 2017, 136,264 CLABSIs were reported to the NHSN by adult and pediatric acute-care locations; adult ICUs and wards reported the most CLABSIs: 59,461 (44%) and 40,763 (30%), respectively. In 2017, the most common pathogens were Candida spp/yeast in adult ICUs (27%) and Enterobacteriaceae in adult wards, pediatric wards, oncology wards, and PICUs (23%–31%). Most pathogen-specific CLABSI rates decreased over time, excepting Candida spp/yeast in adult ICUs and Enterobacteriaceae in oncology wards, which increased, and Staphylococcus aureus rates in pediatric locations, which did not change.Conclusions:The pathogens associated with CLABSIs differ across acute-care location groups. Learning how pathogen-targeted prevention efforts could augment current prevention strategies, such as strategies aimed at preventing Candida spp/yeast and Enterobacteriaceae CLABSIs, might further reduce national rates.

Mucosal Barrier Injury Laboratory-Confirmed Bloodstream Infection: Results from a Field Test of a New National Healthcare Safety Network Definition

2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 769-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isaac See ◽  
Martha Iwamoto ◽  
Kathy Allen-Bridson ◽  
Teresa Horan ◽  
Shelley S. Magill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bloodstream Infection ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Field Test ◽  
Acute Care Hospitals ◽  
Field Testing ◽  
Hospital Staff ◽  
Mucosal Barrier ◽  
National Healthcare ◽  
National Healthcare Safety Network ◽  
Mucosal Barrier Injury

Objective.To assess challenges to implementation of a new National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) surveillance definition, mucosal barrier injury laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection (MBI-LCBI).Design.Multicenter field test.Setting.Selected locations of acute care hospitals participating in NHSN central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) surveillance.Methods.Hospital staff augmented their CLABSI surveillance for 2 months to incorporate MBI-LCBI: a primary bloodstream infection due to a selected group of organisms in patients with either neutropenia or an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease or diarrhea. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) staff reviewed submitted data to verify whether CLABSIs met MBI-LCBI criteria and summarized the descriptive epidemiology of cases reported.Results.Eight cancer, 2 pediatric, and 28 general acute care hospitals including 193 inpatient units (49% oncology/bone marrow transplant [BMT], 21% adult ward, 20% adult critical care, 6% pediatric, 4% step-down) conducted field testing. Among 906 positive blood cultures reviewed, 282 CLABSIs were identified. Of the 103 CLABSIs that also met MBI-LCBI criteria, 100 (97%) were reported from oncology/BMT locations. Agreement between hospital staff and CDC classification of reported CLABSIs as meeting the MBI-LCBI definition was high (90%; k= 0.82). Most MBI-LCBIs (91%) occurred in patients meeting neutropenia criteria. Some hospitals indicated that their laboratories' methods of reporting cell counts prevented application of neutropenia criteria; revised neutropenia criteria were created using data from field testing.Conclusions.Hospital staff applied the MBI-LCBI definition accurately. Field testing informed modifications for the January 2013 implementation of MBI-LCBI in the NHSN.

scholarly journals Incidence of Mucosal Barrier Injury Bloodstream Infections Reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s293-s294
Author(s):  
Prachi Patel ◽  
Margaret A. Dudeck ◽  
Shelley Magill ◽  
Nora Chea ◽  
Nicola Thompson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infection Type ◽  
National Level ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Mucosal Barrier ◽  
Risk Models ◽  
Oncology Patient ◽  
Model Calculations ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Mucosal Barrier Injury ◽  
The Impact

Background: The NHSN collects data on mucosal barrier injury, laboratory-confirmed, bloodstream infections (MBI-LCBIs) as part of bloodstream infection (BSI) surveillance. Specialty care areas (SCAs), which include oncology patient care locations, tend to report the most MBI-LCBI events compared to other location types. During the update of the NSHN aggregate data and risk models in 2015, MBI-LCBI events were excluded from central-line–associated BSI (CLABSI) model calculations; separate models were generated for MBI-LCBIs, resulting in MBI-specific standardized infection ratios (SIRs). This is the first analysis to describe risk-adjusted incidence of MBI-LCBIs at the national level. Methods: Data were analyzed for MBI-LCBIs attributed to oncology locations conducting BSI surveillance from January 2015 through December 2018. We generated annual national MBI-LCBI SIRs using risk models developed from 2015 data and compared the annual SIRs to the baseline (2015) using a mid-P exact test. To account for the impact of an expansion in the MBI-LCBI organism list in 2017 from 489 organisms (32 genera) to 1,003 organisms (89 genera), we removed the MBI-LCBI events that met the newly added MBI organisms and generated additional MBI SIRs for 2017 and 2018. Results: The annual SIRs remained above 1 since 2015, indicating a greater number of MBI-LCBIs identified than were predicted based on the 2015 national data (Fig. 1). Each year’s SIR was significantly different than the national baseline, and the highest SIR was observed in 2017 (SIR, 1.377). In 2017, 12% of MBI events were attributed to an organism that was added to the MBI organism list, and in 2018 it was 10%. After removal of MBIs attributed to the expanded organisms, the 2017 and 2018 SIRs remained higher than those of previous years (1.241 and 1.232, respectively). Conclusions: The distinction of MBI-LCBIs from all other CLABSIs provides an opportunity to assess the burden of this infection type within specific patient populations. Since 2015, the increase of these events in the oncology population highlights the need for greater attention on prevention strategies pertinent to MBI-LCBI in this vulnerable population.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document