Glenister H M, Taylor L J, Bartlett C L, Cooke E M, Sedgwick J A, Mackintosh C A
Laboratory of Hospital Infection, Central Public Health Laboratory, London, UK.
J Hosp Infect. 1993 Mar;23(3):229-42. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(93)90028-x.
Eight selective surveillance methods were compared with a reference method for their ability to detect hospital infections in patients was also assessed. In the reference method, case records were reviewed three times a week, and during the 11-month period of study, 668 infections were identified amongst 3326 patients. Three hundred and thirty-eight were community acquired infections (CAI) and 330 were hospital acquired infections (HAI). The time for data collection was 18.1 h per 100 beds per week. Of the selective surveillance methods, those based on the review of treatment and temperature charts detected the highest proportion (70%) of CAI; and the review of microbiology reports with regular ward liaison identified the highest proportion (71%) of HAI. The time for data collection in the eight methods ranged from 1.2 h per 100 beds per week to 6.5 h per 100 beds per week. After considering the sensitivity for identifying patients with HAI and time for data collection, the review of microbiology reports with regular ward liaison was judged to be an effective and efficient method of surveillance.
将八种选择性监测方法与一种参考方法进行了比较，评估了它们检测患者医院感染的能力。在参考方法中，每周对病例记录进行三次审查，在为期11个月的研究期间，在3326名患者中发现了668例感染。其中338例为社区获得性感染（CAI），330例为医院获得性感染（HAI）。每周每100张床位的数据收集时间为18.1小时。在选择性监测方法中，基于治疗和体温图表审查的方法检测到的CAI比例最高（70%）；通过定期病房联络审查微生物学报告确定的HAI比例最高（71%）。这八种方法的数据收集时间从每周每100张床位1.2小时到每周每100张床位6.5小时不等。在考虑识别HAI患者的敏感性和数据收集时间后，通过定期病房联络审查微生物学报告被认为是一种有效且高效的监测方法。
