In the above article¹, the authors wish to address the following edits:

1. Table 2 should read as follows:

Table 2: Algorithm performance (% (95%-confidence interval), unless specified other)

Abbreviations: Sens=sensitivity; Spec=specificity; PPV=Positive predictive value; NPV= negative predictive value; % red=percentage of workload reduction in number of medical records to review.

2. The footnotes to Table 1 should read as follows:

Footnotes (Table 1):

^a Calculated as follows: [(hospitals reporting in 2020 − hospitals reporting in 2019) ÷ hospitals reporting in 2019] × 100.

^b VAE data are not included in the requirements for the CMS Hospital-Acquired Conditions Reduction Program.

^C SSI hospital counts represent those hospitals that reported procedure-level data eligible for inclusion in the Adult Complex A/R models used for SSI SIR calculations. Hospitals that performed zero procedures, or had zero procedures included in the SIR calculation, were excluded from these counts.¹¹

3. The results in the first paragraph should read as follows:

“The majority of ACHs reporting 2019 HAI surveillance data continued to report data throughout 2020 (Table 1). Between 86 – 88% of hospitals that conducted surveillance for CLABSI, CAUTI, MRSA bacteremia, or CDI during 2019Q1 or 2019Q2 also reported surveillance data for 2020Q1 or 2020Q2. Larger declines in the number of reporting hospitals were seen for VAE (22 – 25% drop) and SSI (15 – 22% drop) surveillance.”