Stern Sarah E, Christensen Matthew A, Nevers McKenna R, Ying Jian, McKenna Caroline, Munro Shannon, Rhee Chanu, Samore Matthew H, Klompas Michael, Jones Barbara E
Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, & Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023 Mar 15:1-7. doi: 10.1017/ice.2022.302.
Surveillance of non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) is complicated by subjectivity and variability in diagnosing pneumonia. We compared a fully automatable surveillance definition using routine electronic health record data to manual determinations of NV-HAP according to surveillance criteria and clinical diagnoses.
We retrospectively applied an electronic surveillance definition for NV-HAP to all adults admitted to Veterans' Affairs (VA) hospitals from January 1, 2015, to November 30, 2020. We randomly selected 250 hospitalizations meeting NV-HAP surveillance criteria for independent review by 2 clinicians and calculated the percent of hospitalizations with (1) clinical deterioration, (2) CDC National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC-NHSN) criteria, (3) NV-HAP according to a reviewer, (4) NV-HAP according to a treating clinician, (5) pneumonia diagnosis in discharge summary; and (6) discharge diagnosis codes for HAP. We assessed interrater reliability by calculating simple agreement and the Cohen κ (kappa).
Among 3.1 million hospitalizations, 14,023 met NV-HAP electronic surveillance criteria. Among reviewed cases, 98% had a confirmed clinical deterioration; 67% met CDC-NHSN criteria; 71% had NV-HAP according to a reviewer; 60% had NV-HAP according to a treating clinician; 49% had a discharge summary diagnosis of pneumonia; and 82% had NV-HAP according to any definition according to at least 1 reviewer. Only 8% had diagnosis codes for HAP. Interrater agreement was 75% (κ = 0.50) for CDC-NHSN criteria and 78% (κ = 0.55) for reviewer diagnosis of NV-HAP.
Electronic NV-HAP surveillance criteria correlated moderately with existing manual surveillance criteria. Reviewer variability for all manual assessments was high. Electronic surveillance using clinical data may therefore allow for more consistent and efficient surveillance with similar accuracy compared to manual assessments or diagnosis codes.
非呼吸机相关性医院获得性肺炎(NV-HAP)的监测因肺炎诊断的主观性和变异性而变得复杂。我们将使用常规电子健康记录数据的完全自动化监测定义与根据监测标准和临床诊断对NV-HAP进行的人工判定进行了比较。
我们回顾性地将NV-HAP的电子监测定义应用于2015年1月1日至2020年11月30日入住退伍军人事务部(VA)医院的所有成年人。我们随机选择了250例符合NV-HAP监测标准的住院病例,由2名临床医生进行独立审查,并计算了符合以下情况的住院病例百分比:(1)临床病情恶化;(2)疾病控制与预防中心国家医疗安全网络(CDC-NHSN)标准;(3)根据一名审查员判定的NV-HAP;(4)根据主治临床医生判定的NV-HAP;(5)出院小结中的肺炎诊断;以及(6)HAP的出院诊断代码。我们通过计算简单一致性和科恩κ系数(kappa)来评估评分者间的可靠性。
在310万例住院病例中,14023例符合NV-HAP电子监测标准。在审查的病例中,98%有确诊的临床病情恶化;67%符合CDC-NHSN标准;71%根据一名审查员判定为NV-HAP;60%根据主治临床医生判定为NV-HAP;49%出院小结诊断为肺炎;82%根据至少一名审查员的任何定义判定为NV-HAP。只有8%有HAP的诊断代码。对于CDC-NHSN标准,评分者间一致性为75%(κ = 0.50),对于审查员对NV-HAP的诊断,一致性为78%(κ = 0.55)。
电子NV-HAP监测标准与现有的人工监测标准有中度相关性。所有人工评估的审查员变异性都很高。因此,与人工评估或诊断代码相比,使用临床数据进行电子监测可能能够以相似的准确性实现更一致和高效的监测。