Cargando…

Do we need to change catheter-related bloodstream infection surveillance in the Netherlands? A qualitative study among infection prevention professionals

OBJECTIVES: Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are a common healthcare-associated infection and therefore targeted by surveillance programmes in many countries. Concerns, however, have been voiced regarding the reliability and construct validity of CRBSI surveillance and the connection...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Verberk, Janneke DM, van der Kooi, Tjallie II, Derde, Lennie PG, Bonten, Marc JM, de Greeff, Sabine C, van Mourik, Maaike SM
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8375748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34408033
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046366
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are a common healthcare-associated infection and therefore targeted by surveillance programmes in many countries. Concerns, however, have been voiced regarding the reliability and construct validity of CRBSI surveillance and the connection with the current diagnostic procedures. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of infection control practitioners (ICPs) and medical professionals with the current CRBSI surveillance in the Netherlands and their suggestions for improvement. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) with ICPs and medical professionals separately, followed by semistructured interviews to investigate whether the points raised in the FGDs were recognised and confirmed by the interviewees. Analyses were performed using thematic analyses. SETTING: Basic, teaching and academic hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 24 ICPs and 9 medical professionals. RESULTS: Main themes derived from experiences with current surveillance were (1) ICPs’ doubt regarding the yield of surveillance given the low incidence of CRBSI, the high workload and IT problems; (2) the experienced lack of leadership and responsibility for recording information needed for surveillance and (3) difficulties with applying and interpreting the CRBSI definition. Suggestions were made to simplify the surveillance protocol, expand the follow-up and surveillance to homecare settings, simplify the definition and customise it for specific patient groups. Participants reported hoping for and counting on automatisation solutions to support future surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals several problems with the feasibility and acceptance of the current CRBSI surveillance and proposes several suggestions for improvement. This provides valuable input for future surveillance activities, thereby taking into account automation possibilities.