February 2017

FOCUS ON: HAI HAIs in T xas acute care hospitals HAIs in Texas acute care hospitals ϮϬϭϰ Ɛ

ϮϬϭϰ ƐƚĂƚĞ ^/Z Ɛ ƐŝŐŶŝĮ ĂŶƚůǇ ůŽ Ğƌ ;ďĞ Ğƌ) ƚŚĂŶ comparison group in column header

Ğ ^/Z ŝ ŝƐ ƐŝŐŶŝĮ ĐĂŶƚůǇ ůŽǁĞƌ ;ďĞƩ Ğƌ) ƚŚĂŶ HAI TYPE

THAT REPORTED DATA TO CDC, 2014+

# OF TEXAS HOSPITALS

Total Hospitals in Texas: 477

CENTRAL LINE- ASSOCIATED BLOODSTREAM INFECTIONS National baseline: 200

CATHETER- ASSOCIATED URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS National baseline: 2009

SURGICAL SITE INFECTION (SSI), ABDOMINAL HYSTERECTOMY National baseline: 2008

SSI, COLON SURGERY

National baseline: 2008

MRSA BACTEREMIA National baseline: 2011

C. DIFFICILE

INFECTIONS National baseline: 2011

+The number of hospitals that reported to National Healthcare Safety Network and are included in the SIR calculation. This number may vary across HAI types; for example, some hospitals do not use central lines or urinary catheters or do not perform colon or abdominal

not per orm colon or abdominal hysterectomy surgeries.

‡National baseline time period varies by HAI type. See first

column of this table for specifics. 372 371 4% 16% 50% DECREASE IN CENTRAL

DECREASE IN CENTRAL LINE-ASSOCIATED BLOODSTREAM 00

THERE WAS

OVERALL CATHETER- ASSOCIATED URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS (2009–14) AMONG NATIONAL

VERALL

NO CHANGE IN OCIATED URINAR 009– 4) AMONG

THETER

ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS.

INFECTIONS, 2008–14, AMONG NATIONAL

INFE TIONS

AMONG NATIONAL ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS

00 4% <1% 17% 8% 2%

DECREASE IN COLON

SURGERY SSI,

2008–14, AMONG NATIONAL ACUTE

AMONG

NATIONAL CUTE CARE HOSPITALS

8%

DECREASE IN C. DIFFICILE

INFECTIONS, 17% DECREASE IN

ABDOMINAL HYSTEREC- TOMY SURGICAL SITE INFECTIONS (SSIS), 2008–14, AMONG NATIONAL ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS

13%

DECREASE IN MRSA BACTEREMIA,

2011–14, AMONG NATIONAL

ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS

February 2017 TEXAS MEDICINE 9

2011–14, AMONG NATIONAL ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS

0.83 0.92 0.87 0.92

ŚĂŶŐĞ ŝŶ ϮϬϭϰ ƐƚĂƚĞ ^/Z ĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚ ƚŽ ŐƌŽƵƉ ŝŶ ĐŽůƵŵŶ ŚĞĂĚĞƌ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ ƐƚĂƟ ƐƟ ĐĂůůǇ ƐŝŐŶŝĮ ĐĂŶƚ

2014 STATE STANDARDIZED INFECTION RATIO (SIR)

VS. 2013 STATE SIR 289 9%

2014 STATE SIR VS.

2014 NATIONAL SIR

6%

ϮϬϭϰ ƐƚĂƚĞ ^/Z ŝƐ ƐŝŐŶŝĮ ĐĂŶƚůǇ ŚŝŐŚĞƌ ;ǁŽƌƐĞ) than comparison group in column header

2014 STATE SIR VS.

NATIONAL BASELINE‡

53%

STATE SIR

2014

NATIONAL SIR

2014 297 1% 4% 288 13% 25% 280 10% 14%

,ĞĂůƚŚ ĐĂƌĞ-ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚ ŝŶĨĞĐƟ ŽŶƐ ;, /Ɛ) ĂƌĞ Ă ŵĂũŽƌ, ŽŌ ĞŶ ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚĂďůĞ, ƉĂƟ ĞŶƚ ƐĂĨĞƚǇ ƚŚƌĞĂƚ. ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ h.^. ĞŶƚĞƌƐ ĨŽƌ ŝƐĞĂƐĞ ŽŶƚƌŽů ĂŶĚ WƌĞǀĞŶƟ ŽŶ ), ŵŽƐƚ , / ƌĂƚĞƐ ŚĂǀĞ

;

decreased, but more can be done to ĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞ ƚŚĞŵ. dŚĞ ϮϬϭϰ ĚĂƚĂ ŚĞƌĞ ĐŽŵĞ ĨƌŽŵ ’Ɛ EĂƟ ŽŶĂů ĂŶĚ ^ƚĂƚĞ ,ĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞ- ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚ /ŶĨĞĐƟ ŽŶƐ WƌŽŐƌĞƐƐ ZĞƉŽƌƚ ;ǁǁǁ.ĐĚĐ.ŐŽǀ/ŚĂŝ/ ƐƵƌǀĞŝůůĂŶĐĞ/ƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐ-ƌĞƉŽƌƚ).

0.47

0.50

4%

1.04

1.00

36%

0.64

0.83

15%

0.85

0.98

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Page 12 | Page 13 | Page 14 | Page 15 | Page 16 | Page 17 | Page 18 | Page 19 | Page 20 | Page 21 | Page 22 | Page 23 | Page 24 | Page 25 | Page 26 | Page 27 | Page 28 | Page 29 | Page 30 | Page 31 | Page 32 | Page 33 | Page 34 | Page 35 | Page 36 | Page 37 | Page 38 | Page 39 | Page 40 | Page 41 | Page 42 | Page 43 | Page 44 | Page 45 | Page 46 | Page 47 | Page 48 | Page 49 | Page 50 | Page 51 | Page 52 | Page 53 | Page 54 | Page 55 | Page 56 | Page 57 | Page 58 | Page 59 | Page 60 | Page 61 | Page 62 | Page 63 | Page 64 | Page 65 | Page 66 | Page 67 | Page 68