search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology (2018), 39, 1494–1496 doi:10.1017/ice.2018.251


Concise Communication


Culturing practices and the care of the urinary catheter in reducing NHSN-defined catheter-associated urinary tract infections: The tale of two teaching hospitals


Ana Cecilia Bardossy MD1, Takiah Williams RN2, Karen Jones MPH, RN, CIC2, Susan Szpunar PhD3,


Marcus Zervos MD1, George Alangaden MD1, Katherine Reyes MD, MPH1 and Mohamad G. Fakih MD, MPH4 1Division of Infectious Diseases, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, 2Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Ascension St John Hospital, 3Medical Education, Ascension St John Hospital, Detroit, Michigan and 4Care Excellence, Ascension Healthcare, St Louis, Missouri


Abstract


We compared interventions to improve urinary catheter care and urine culturing in adult intensive care units of 2 teaching hospitals. Compared to hospital A, hospital B had lower catheter utilization, more compliance with appropriate indications and maintenance, but higher urine culture use and more positive urine cultures per 1,000 patient days.


(Received 25 June 2018; accepted 26 August 2018; electronically published October 10, 2018)


The prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) has historically focused on appropriate use and maintenance. It is not clear how culturing practices affect the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN)-defined CAUTI events in the setting of other interventions to reduce catheter risk. The objectives of this study were to assess compliance with best practices related to the use and maintenance of devices and to evaluate how culturing practices affect CAUTI rates in the intensive care units (ICU) of 2 large teaching hospitals.


Methods


We conducted an intervention to reduce catheter risk and to improve culturing stewardship in the adult medical and surgical ICUs at 2 academic tertiary-care hospitals (hospital A: 60 ICU beds; hospital B: 140 ICU beds) for the first 6 months of 2015. We compared the use of urinary catheters, urine cultures, and NHSN- defined CAUTI events in the ICUs of both hospitals for the first 6 months of 2014 and 2015. The intervention consisted of edu- cating the ICU teams, including resident physicians and nurses, on strategies to reduce the risk of urinary catheter use, and appropriate testing for CAUTI. A toolkit was developed and used to educate resident physicians at both institutions.1 Identical presentations were given to resident physicians at both institu- tions addressing the appropriate use of devices and laboratory


Author for correspondence: Mohamad Fakih, MD, MPH, Care Excellence, Ascen-


sion Healthcare, 4600 Edmundson Rd, St. Louis, MO 63134. E-mail: Mohamad.Fakih@ ascension.org PREVIOUS PRESENTATION: This study was presented in part (abstracts #502 and #509) at the SHEA Spring 2016 conference on May XX, 2016, in Atlanta, Georgia. Cite this article: Cecilia Bardossy A, et al. (2018). Culturing practices and the care of


the urinary catheter in reducing NHSN-defined catheter-associated urinary tract infections: The tale of two teaching hospitals. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2018, 39, 1494–1496. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.251


© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.


workups for CAUTI. Face-to-face weekly audits and feedback on appropriate device use were provided to nurses and/or physicians along with monthly lectures to resident physicians. During the first 6 months of 2015, weekly audits were per-


formed on the maintenance elements (break in the seal, urinary bag position, and catheter securement). Appropriate indications for urinary catheter use were based on the 2009 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.2 Urinary output monitoring in critically ill patients was considered appropriate only if there was need for hourly measurement of urinary output.3 Catheter utilization, urine culture use and the 2015 NHSN- defined CAUTI rates4 were measured and compared for the first 6-month periods of 2014 and 2015. Because the NHSN CAUTI definitions changed between 2014 and 2015, we reevaluated all the 2014 events to match the 2015 definition. The institutional review boards at each of the participating institutions approved the study.


Statistical analysis


Data on device use and compliance on maintenance processes were analyzed using the Pearson χ2 test. The z test was used to compare person-time rates. All data were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY), and a P value of .05 or less was considered statistically significant.


Results


Of 2,447 patients evaluated in weekly audits, 1,575 patients (64.4%) had urinary catheters present (Table 1). Urinary catheters were present with appropriate indication in 1,331 of 1,575 patients (84.5%). The most common appropriate reasons for using catheters were accurate measurement of urinary output in 1,038 of 1,575 patients (65.9%), perioperative use in 149 of 1,575


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  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124