Suppr超能文献

如果仅将感染鉴定局限于有微生物学报告或接受抗生素治疗的患者,会漏诊多少医院感染病例?

How many nosocomial infections are missed if identification is restricted to patients with either microbiology reports or antibiotic administration?

作者信息

Gastmeier P, Bräuer H, Hauer T, Schumacher M, Daschner F, Rüden H

机构信息

Institute for Hygiene, Free University of Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;20(2):124-7. doi: 10.1086/501600.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how many nosocomial infections would be missed if surveillance activities were restricted to patients having either microbiology reports or antibiotic administration.

DESIGN

Analysis of data from a large prevalence study on nosocomial infections (Nosocomial Infections in Germany-Surveillance and Prevention).

SETTING

A total of 14,966 patients were investigated in medical, surgical, obstetric-gynecologic, and intensive-care units of 72 German hospitals representatively selected according to size. Five hundred eighteen patients (3.5%) had at least one nosocomial infection. Microbiology reports were available for 56.6% of these patients on the prevalence day, and 86.3% received antibiotics.

RESULTS

Only 31 nosocomially infected patients (6%) would have been missed by using either microbiology reports or antibiotic treatment as an indicator. These indicators of nosocomial infections had a high diagnostic sensitivity for nosocomial pneumonia (98.8%), urinary tract infections (96.3%), and primary bloodstream infections (95.3%), but a lower sensitivity for wound infections (85.4%). Thus, 97.4% of all nosocomial infections were found with this method in intensive-care units and 96.1% in medicine units, but only 89.7% in surgical departments. In 9 (12.5%) of 72 hospitals, the overall sensitivity would have been <80% using a combination of the two indicators. For this reason, the situation in one's own hospital should be checked before using this method.

CONCLUSIONS

After checking the situation in one's own hospital, the "either-or" approach using the two indicators "microbiology report" and "antibiotic administration" can be recommended as a time-saving measure to diagnose pneumonia, urinary tract, and primary bloodstream infections. For wound infections, additional information obtained by changing dressings or participating in ward rounds is necessary to achieve satisfactory sensitivity in the surveillance of nosocomial infections. Of course, it is necessary that the surveillance staff discard all false positives to ensure a satisfactory specificity.

摘要

目的

调查如果监测活动仅限于有微生物学报告或接受抗生素治疗的患者,会漏诊多少医院感染病例。

设计

对一项关于医院感染的大型现患率研究(德国医院感染监测与预防)的数据进行分析。

背景

根据规模代表性选取了72家德国医院的内科、外科、妇产科和重症监护病房,共对14966例患者进行了调查。518例患者(3.5%)至少发生了1次医院感染。在现患率调查日,这些患者中有56.6%有微生物学报告,86.3%接受了抗生素治疗。

结果

若将微生物学报告或抗生素治疗作为指标,仅会漏诊31例医院感染患者(6%)。这些医院感染指标对医院获得性肺炎(98.8%)、尿路感染(96.3%)和原发性血流感染(95.3%)具有较高的诊断敏感性,但对伤口感染的敏感性较低(85.4%)。因此,重症监护病房采用该方法可发现97.4%的所有医院感染病例,内科病房为96.1%,但外科仅为89.7%。在72家医院中的9家(12.5%),使用这两个指标联合的总体敏感性会低于80%。因此,在使用该方法前应检查自身医院的情况。

结论

在检查自身医院的情况后,可推荐使用“微生物学报告”和“抗生素治疗”这两个指标的“二者选一”方法作为诊断肺炎、尿路感染和原发性血流感染的省时措施。对于伤口感染,在医院感染监测中,为达到满意的敏感性,需要通过更换敷料或参与查房获取额外信息。当然,监测人员必须排除所有假阳性结果以确保有满意的特异性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验