A Comparison of Administrative Data Versus Surveillance Data for Hospital-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Canadian Hospitals

Jessica Y Ramirez Mendoza, N. Daneman, M. Elias, J. Amuah, K. Bush, C. Couris, K. Leeb
{"title":"A Comparison of Administrative Data Versus Surveillance Data for Hospital-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Canadian Hospitals","authors":"Jessica Y Ramirez Mendoza, N. Daneman, M. Elias, J. Amuah, K. Bush, C. Couris, K. Leeb","doi":"10.1017/ice.2016.302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND In Canadian hospitals, clinical information is coded according to national coding standards and is routinely collected as administrative data. Administrative data may complement active surveillance programs by providing in-hospital MRSA infection data in a standardized and efficient manner, but only if infections are accurately captured. OBJECTIVE To assess the accuracy of administrative data regarding in-hospital bloodstream infections (BSIs) and all-body-site infections due to MRSA. METHODS A retrospective study of all (adult and pediatric) in-hospital MRSA infections was conducted by comparing administrative data against surveillance data from 217 acute Canadian hospitals (124 in Ontario, 93 in Alberta) over a 12-month period. Hospital-associated MRSA BSI cases in Ontario, and for all-body-site MRSA infections in Alberta were identified. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to compare the number of hospital-level MRSA cases within administrative versus surveillance datasets. The correlation of all-body-site MRSA infections versus MRSA BSIs was also assessed using the Ontario administrative data. RESULTS Strong correlations between hospital-level MRSA cases in administrative and surveillance datasets were identified for Ontario (r=0.79; 95% CI, 0.72–0.85) and Alberta (r=0.92; 95% CI, 0.88–0.94). A strong correlation between all-body-site and bloodstream-only MRSA infection rates was identified across Ontario hospitals (r=0.95; P<.0001; 95% CI, 0.93–0.96). CONCLUSIONS This study provides good evidence of the comparability of administrative and surveillance datasets in identifying in-hospital MRSA infections. With standard definitions, administrative data can provide estimates of in-hospital infections for monitoring and/or comparisons across hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:436–443","PeriodicalId":13655,"journal":{"name":"Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology","volume":"54 1","pages":"436 - 443"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2016.302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

BACKGROUND In Canadian hospitals, clinical information is coded according to national coding standards and is routinely collected as administrative data. Administrative data may complement active surveillance programs by providing in-hospital MRSA infection data in a standardized and efficient manner, but only if infections are accurately captured. OBJECTIVE To assess the accuracy of administrative data regarding in-hospital bloodstream infections (BSIs) and all-body-site infections due to MRSA. METHODS A retrospective study of all (adult and pediatric) in-hospital MRSA infections was conducted by comparing administrative data against surveillance data from 217 acute Canadian hospitals (124 in Ontario, 93 in Alberta) over a 12-month period. Hospital-associated MRSA BSI cases in Ontario, and for all-body-site MRSA infections in Alberta were identified. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to compare the number of hospital-level MRSA cases within administrative versus surveillance datasets. The correlation of all-body-site MRSA infections versus MRSA BSIs was also assessed using the Ontario administrative data. RESULTS Strong correlations between hospital-level MRSA cases in administrative and surveillance datasets were identified for Ontario (r=0.79; 95% CI, 0.72–0.85) and Alberta (r=0.92; 95% CI, 0.88–0.94). A strong correlation between all-body-site and bloodstream-only MRSA infection rates was identified across Ontario hospitals (r=0.95; P<.0001; 95% CI, 0.93–0.96). CONCLUSIONS This study provides good evidence of the comparability of administrative and surveillance datasets in identifying in-hospital MRSA infections. With standard definitions, administrative data can provide estimates of in-hospital infections for monitoring and/or comparisons across hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:436–443
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加拿大医院相关耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌感染的管理数据与监测数据的比较
在加拿大医院,临床信息按照国家编码标准进行编码,并作为行政数据常规收集。行政数据可以补充主动监测计划,以标准化和有效的方式提供院内MRSA感染数据,但前提是感染被准确捕获。目的评估MRSA引起的院内血流感染(bsi)和全身感染管理数据的准确性。方法通过比较来自加拿大217家急性医院(安大略省124家,阿尔伯塔省93家)12个月期间的管理数据和监测数据,对所有(成人和儿童)院内MRSA感染进行回顾性研究。确定了安大略省医院相关的MRSA BSI病例和阿尔伯塔省全身MRSA感染病例。Pearson相关系数用于比较管理和监测数据集中医院级MRSA病例的数量。全身部位MRSA感染与MRSA BSIs的相关性也使用安大略省行政数据进行了评估。结果安大略省行政管理和监测数据集中医院级MRSA病例之间存在强相关性(r=0.79;95% CI, 0.72-0.85)和Alberta (r=0.92;95% ci, 0.88-0.94)。在安大略省的医院中,发现全身部位和仅血液的MRSA感染率之间存在很强的相关性(r=0.95;P <。;95% ci, 0.93-0.96)。结论:本研究为确定院内MRSA感染的管理和监测数据集的可比性提供了很好的证据。通过标准定义,管理数据可以提供医院内感染的估计,以便进行监测和/或在医院之间进行比较。中华流行病学杂志,2017;38:436-443
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ICE volume 39 issue 7 Cover and Front matter ICE volume 39 issue 7 Cover and Back matter ICE volume 39 issue 6 Cover and Front matter ICE volume 39 issue 6 Cover and Back matter ICE volume 39 issue 5 Cover and Back matter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1