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
356


Table 1. Prevalence of Healthcare-Associated Infections by Demographic Characteristics Among Inpatients on May 11, 2017, in 6 MNGHA Hospitals


Overall Overall


Gender Male


Female


Age groups, y <65 ≥65


<1 1–15


16–45 46–64


Unit ICU Non-ICU


Ward, all others


207 12 28 13.5 179 86.5 <.001 1,459 88 86 5.9 1,373 94.1


Ward, SCA 232 14 18 7.8 214 92.2 1,182 71 67 5.7 1,115 94.3


Emergency (>1d)


45 3 1 2.2 44 97.8


Note. ICU, intensive care unit; SCA, specialty care areas included oncology, hematology, and organ transplant wards.


All possible HAI events identified by infection control


professionals were centrally reviewed and confirmed by an infec- tious disease consultant and an expert epidemiologist, with high concordance rate (94.7%; κ = 0.71). Differences in the prevalence of HAIs in different groups were examined using a χ2 test or the Fisher exact test as appropriate. All P values were 2-tailed.AP<.05 was considered significant. SPSS version 23.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY) was used for all statistical analyses.


Results


Of 1,666 patient records reviewed, 114 HAI events were identified among 109 patients. As shown in Table 1, the overall point preva- lence rate was 6.8%. This rate was significantly higher among males than females (8.2%vs 5.5%;P=.030) andtended to be slightly higher among older patients (8.7%in those ≥ 65 years old vs 6.1%in those < 65 years old; P = .064).AlthoughmostHAI events were identified outside ICUs (75.4%), the point-prevalence rate was significantly higher in ICUs (13.5%; P < .001) than in specialty care wards (7.8%) and other types of wards (5.7%). The most common types of HAI were pneumonia (27.2%), urinary tract infection (20.2%), bloodstream infection (10.5%), gastrointestinal infection (9.6%), skin and soft tissue infection (9.6%), and SSI (7.9%) (Figure 1). Approximately one-fifth (19.2%) of HAI events were device


associated; among them, 22.6% were pneumonia, 43.5% were uri- nary tract infections, and 41.7% were bloodstream infections. The most commonly reported potential risk factors were prolonged hospital stay of >2 weeks (52.6%), ICU admission during current hospitalization (33.3%), surgery within the previous month


HAI No HAI


No. % No. % No. % 1,666 100 114 6.8 1,552 93.2


P Value


Majid M. Alshamrani et al


830 50 68 8.2 762 91.8 .030 836 50 46 5.5 790 94.5


1,206 72 74 6.1 1,132 93.9 .064 460 28 40 8.7 420 91.3


231 14 13 5.6 218 94.4 .233 223 13 18 8.1 205 91.9 429 26 22 5.1 407 94.9 323 19 21 6.5 302 93.5


Fig. 1. Distribution of the types of healthcare-associated infections detected among inpatients on May 11, 2017, in 6 MNGHA hospitals. Note. UTI, urinary tract infection; BSI, bloodstream infection; GI, gastrointestinal system infection, ST, soft tissue; SSI, surgical site infection; CVS, cardiovascular system infection; ENT, ear, nose, and throat infection.


(28.1%), receiving enteral feeding (27.2%), and total parenteral nutrition (21.1%). The most common associated pathogens were Pseudomonas spp (18.9%), Klebsiella spp (18.9%), Escherichia coli (13.2%), Staphylococcus aureus (6.6%), and Acinetobacter spp (6.6%). Approximately 14.9% (17 of 114) of HAI events were diagnosed without culture.


Discussion


Weobserved a 6.8%prevalence ofHAIs at 6 tertiary-care hospitals in SaudiArabia. The burden ofHAIs inMNGHAhospitals is generally comparable to those reported by large multicenter PPS studies done in European countries (6.0%),2 the United States (4.0%),3 Canada (11.6%),4 Japan (7.7%),5 Vietnam (7.8%),7 and China (3.7%).6 Nevertheless, these comparisons should be done very cau- tiously becausemultiple factors can markedly change the estimated burden. These factors include the use of different HAI definitions, inclusion of all versus random sample of eligible patients, inclusion of all ages versus exclusion of neonatal or pediatric patients, and the lack of a validation process for the diagnosed events. In the current study, pneumonia was the most frequently diag-


nosed HAI, representing 27% of all HAIs. This rate was similar to the majority of previous reports, which ranked pneumonia as either the first3,5–7 or second2,4 most frequent HAI, with percent- ages ranging from 16%5 to 47%.6 On the other hand, the frequency of SSI in the current study (7.9%) was clearly less than those of pre- vious reports, which reported rates similar or second to that of pneumonia (17%–27%).2,3,5,7 However, our patients received SSI treatment at the outpatient or emergency departments (not an included location in this study) and some patients did not return to the same MNGHA hospital where surgery was done, which could explain this difference. Underreporting of HAIs cannot be excluded in this study, especially with SSIs. Additionally, infection control professionals collected data from their own hospitals. However, underreporting is a chronic problem inherited in the PPS design and can only be minimized by training data collectors and validating diagnoses.10 In conclusion, we report an HAI burden that is generally com- parable to that in European and US hospitals but with some


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  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132