Clostridioides difficile surveillance: 9-year comparison between automated surveillance and conventional surveillance in acute care hospitals.

Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE Pub Date : 2025-02-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/ash.2025.5
Jean Stanciu, Patrick Dolcé, Charles Frenette, Marie-Claude Roy, Lina Kouider, Yves Longtin
{"title":"<i>Clostridioides difficile</i> surveillance: 9-year comparison between automated surveillance and conventional surveillance in acute care hospitals.","authors":"Jean Stanciu, Patrick Dolcé, Charles Frenette, Marie-Claude Roy, Lina Kouider, Yves Longtin","doi":"10.1017/ash.2025.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop and validate an automated surveillance system for healthcare-associated <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infections (HA-CDI).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Multicenter cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>16 acute care hospitals.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients admitted to participating hospitals between 2013 and 2022.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An automated surveillance system was developed with retrospective extraction from admission/discharge/transfer and laboratory databases and compared with conventional surveillance based on clinical definitions collected prospectively by infection control professionals. Comparison of HA-CDI incidence rates calculated by automated vs conventional surveillances were performed with χ<sup>2</sup>, incidence rate ratios, and linear regression. A subset of discordant cases was further investigated by reviewing medical records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, conventional surveillance reported 3,211 cases of HA-CDI for an incidence rate of 4.94 per 10,000 patient-days. Automated surveillance detected 4,708 cases, for an incidence rate of 7.24 per 10,000 patient-days (incidence rate ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.40-1.53). Full concordance between both surveillance methods was observed in 62% of cases, while 34% of cases were detected only by automated surveillance, and 4% were detected by conventional surveillance only. Between 2013 and 2022, an identical declining trend in HA-CDI incidence rates of -0.54 cases per 10,000 patient-days was observed with both surveillance methods. A subset of 49 cases detected only by automated surveillance were reviewed; the main reasons for discrepancy were delayed testing (39%), colonization (24%), misclassifications (14%), and interinstitutional transfers (12%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HA-CDI incidence rates calculated by automated surveillance were higher than those of conventional surveillance, but the overestimation was consistent over time, suggesting that a correction factor could improve precision.</p>","PeriodicalId":72246,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","volume":"5 1","pages":"e63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11869069/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2025.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To develop and validate an automated surveillance system for healthcare-associated Clostridioides difficile infections (HA-CDI).

Design: Multicenter cohort study.

Setting: 16 acute care hospitals.

Patients: Patients admitted to participating hospitals between 2013 and 2022.

Methods: An automated surveillance system was developed with retrospective extraction from admission/discharge/transfer and laboratory databases and compared with conventional surveillance based on clinical definitions collected prospectively by infection control professionals. Comparison of HA-CDI incidence rates calculated by automated vs conventional surveillances were performed with χ2, incidence rate ratios, and linear regression. A subset of discordant cases was further investigated by reviewing medical records.

Results: Overall, conventional surveillance reported 3,211 cases of HA-CDI for an incidence rate of 4.94 per 10,000 patient-days. Automated surveillance detected 4,708 cases, for an incidence rate of 7.24 per 10,000 patient-days (incidence rate ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.40-1.53). Full concordance between both surveillance methods was observed in 62% of cases, while 34% of cases were detected only by automated surveillance, and 4% were detected by conventional surveillance only. Between 2013 and 2022, an identical declining trend in HA-CDI incidence rates of -0.54 cases per 10,000 patient-days was observed with both surveillance methods. A subset of 49 cases detected only by automated surveillance were reviewed; the main reasons for discrepancy were delayed testing (39%), colonization (24%), misclassifications (14%), and interinstitutional transfers (12%).

Conclusions: HA-CDI incidence rates calculated by automated surveillance were higher than those of conventional surveillance, but the overestimation was consistent over time, suggesting that a correction factor could improve precision.

艰难梭菌监测:急性护理医院自动监测与常规监测的9年比较。
目的:开发和验证医疗相关艰难梭菌感染(HA-CDI)的自动监测系统。设计:多中心队列研究。环境:16家急症护理医院。患者:2013年至2022年间在参与医院住院的患者。方法:建立自动监测系统,对入院/出院/转院和实验室数据库进行回顾性提取,并与感染控制专业人员前瞻性收集临床定义的常规监测进行比较。采用χ2、发病率比和线性回归对自动监测与常规监测计算的HA-CDI发病率进行比较。通过审查医疗记录,进一步调查了一部分不一致的病例。结果:总体而言,常规监测报告了3211例HA-CDI,发病率为每10,000患者日4.94例。自动监测发现病例4708例,发病率为7.24 /万患者日(发病率比1.47;95% ci, 1.40-1.53)。在62%的病例中观察到两种监测方法完全一致,而34%的病例仅通过自动监测发现,4%仅通过常规监测发现。在2013年至2022年期间,两种监测方法观察到HA-CDI发病率的下降趋势相同,为每10,000患者日-0.54例。审查了仅通过自动监测发现的49例病例子集;差异的主要原因是延迟检测(39%)、殖民化(24%)、错误分类(14%)和机构间转移(12%)。结论:自动化监测计算的HA-CDI发病率高于常规监测,但随着时间的推移,高估是一致的,表明校正因子可以提高精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信