Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Mar-Apr;20(2):369-72. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000898. Epub 2012 Aug 7.
This study assessed the effectiveness of a fully automated surveillance system for the detection of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) in intensive care units. Manual ward surveillance (MS) and electronic surveillance (ES) were performed for two intensive care units of the Vienna General Hospital. All patients admitted for a period longer than 48 h between 13 November 2006 and 7 February 2007 were evaluated according to HELICS-defined rules for HCAI. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and personnel time spent per surveillance type were calculated. Ninety-three patient admissions were observed, whereby 30 HCAI episodes were taken as a reference standard. Results with MS versus ES were: sensitivity 40% versus 87%, specificity 94% versus 99%, PPV 71% versus 96%, NPV 80% versus 95%, and time spent per surveillance type 82.5 h versus 12.5 h. In conclusion, ES was found to be more effective than MS while consuming fewer personnel resources.
本研究评估了全自动化监测系统在重症监护病房（ICU）中用于检测医源性感染（HAI）的效果。维也纳总医院的两个 ICU 分别进行了人工病房监测（MS）和电子监测（ES）。2006 年 11 月 13 日至 2007 年 2 月 7 日期间，所有入住 ICU 时间超过 48 小时的患者均根据 HELICS 定义的 HAI 规则进行评估。计算了每种监测方法的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值（PPV）、阴性预测值（NPV）和所花费的人员时间。共观察到 93 例患者入院，其中 30 例 HAI 发作作为参考标准。MS 与 ES 的结果为：敏感性分别为 40%和 87%，特异性分别为 94%和 99%，PPV 分别为 71%和 96%，NPV 分别为 80%和 95%，每种监测方法所花费的人员时间分别为 82.5 小时和 12.5 小时。总之，ES 的效果优于 MS，同时消耗的人员资源更少。
