Automated surveillance technology may reduce hospital-acquired infection rates
Hospitals that use automated surveillance technology may be more likely than those that use manual surveillance to combat hospital-acquired infections effectively, according to findings presented at the 37th Annual Conference and International Meeting of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology.
Researchers conducted a structured, computer-assisted telephone survey with the quality director of all acute care general hospitals in California between October 2008 and January 2009. The aim was to determine whether use of automated surveillance technology is more effective than manual surveillance in implementing hospital-acquired infection control programs.
The response rate was 79.5%, which accounted for 241 hospitals in the final analysis.
Findings indicated that 32.4% of the hospitals employ automated surveillance technology to monitor hospital-acquired infections.
Statistically significant positive associations were observed between adoption of automated surveillance technology and the depth to which hospitals implemented evidence-based prevention programs for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, ventilator-associated pneumonia and other hospital-acquired infections. Hospitals with automated methods were more likely than those with manual methods to have fully implemented research-based programs to reduce MRSA (85% vs. 66%), ventilator-associated pneumonia (96% vs. 88%) and surgical care infection practices (91% vs. 82%).
Similar associations were observed between surveillance technology and contact precautions, adoption of formal written evidence-based practices, implementation of such practices and assessing compliance with them.
“Our findings suggest that hospitals that use automated surveillance technology are able to put more hospital-acquired infection elimination strategies into place that will ultimately reduce the risk of infection,” Helen Halpin, ScM, PhD, professor of health policy at University of California, Berkeley, said in a press release. “Manual identification of infections is costly, time-consuming and diverts staff time from prevention activities. The advantages of automated surveillance are enormous in an era where the CMS and many private insurers will no longer pay for the additional costs attributable to certain hospital-acquired infections, and many states report infection rates publicly.”
