Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T13:24:53.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sentinel System for Nosocomial Infections in the Netherlands A Pilot Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

A.J. Severijnen ,
H.A. Verbrugh ,
A.J. Mintjes-de Groot ,
C.M.J.E. Vandenbroucke-Grauls  and
W. van Pelt
A.J. Severijnen
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
H.A. Verbrugh
Affiliation:
Regional Public Health Laboratory, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
A.J. Mintjes-de Groot
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control, Oudenrijn Hospital Utrecht, The Netherlands
C.M.J.E. Vandenbroucke-Grauls
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control and the Department of Clinical Microbiology and Hospital Hygiene, University Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands
W. van Pelt*
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
*
Department of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, PO Box 1, NL-3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands; e-mail W.VAN.PELT@RIVM.NL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the feasibility of stan¬dardized surveillance of nosocomial infections (NI) in The Netherlands, using local data on patients with NI collected by infection control practitioners (ICPs) and denominator data on all patients under surveillance obtained from the Dutch National Medical Registry (LMR).

Design:

A prospective, multicenter study.

Setting:

Eight hospitals in the Utrecht region, and the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment.

Patients:

ICPs traced NI in gynecological and orthopedic patients for 9 to 16 months. Denominator data on all patients under surveillance were obtained from the LMR

Results:

Data from 8,922 patients were collected; the ICPs registered 470 patients with 526 N1. Overall, the NI incidence was 5.9 per 100 patients, or 6.3 per 1,000 patient days. Urinary tract infections (UTI) were most frequent (3.3%), followed by surgical-wound infections (SWI; 2.0%) and bloodborne infections (0.12%). The incidence of both SWI and UTI differed markedly between hospitals, only partially on account of differences in patient mix (age, type of operations), antibiotic prophylaxis, and intensity of tracing methods for NI. Delay in the availability of denominator data hampered the timely feedback of incidence figures.

Conclusions:

Surveillance of NI in a network of sentinel hospitals offered valuable information on the occurrence of NI and on factors influencing the incidence of NI. It revealed situations in which both NI surveillance and infection control methods in individual hospitals should be improved. Obtaining denominator data on all patients from electronically registered patient discharge data greatly reduces the workload of ICPs and enables surveillance on all types of NI (all body sites and all pathogens). For timely feedback, numerator and denominator data within hospitals must be linked.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 18 , Issue 12 , December 1997 , pp. 818 - 824
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Verbrugh, HA, Mintjes-de Groot, AJ, Verkooyen, RPAJ. Registratie en preventie van ziekenhuisinfecties in een alge¬meen ziekenhuis. Ned Tijdlwhr Geneeskd 1990;134:490–495.Google Scholar
2. Michel, MF, Priem, CC. Positive blood cultures in a university hospital in The Netherlands. Infection 1981;9:283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Anonymous. Preventie en bestrijding van ziekenhuisinfecties. Rapport Gezondheidsraad: Den Haag, The Netherlands; 1990:20.Google Scholar
4. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:182–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, et al. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Efron, B. The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans. CBMSNSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. no 38. Philadelphia, PA Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Mertens, R, Berg, JMJ van den, Veerman-Brenzikofer, MLV, Kurz, X, Jans, B, Klazinga, N. International comparison of results of infection surveillance: The Netherlands versus Belgium. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:574–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed