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.