You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
Diagnosing and Reporting of Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections
Susan E. Beekmann RN MPH, Daniel J. Diekema MD, W. Charles Huskins MD MSc, Loreen Herwaldt MD, John M. Boyce MD, Robert J. Sherertz MD, Philip M. Polgreen MD MPH and on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Emerging Infections Network
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Vol. 33, No. 9 (September 2012), pp. 875-882
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667379
Page Count: 8
Preview not available
Background. The diagnosis of central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) is often controversial, and existing guidelines differ in important ways.Objective. To determine both the range of practices involved in obtaining blood culture samples and how central line–associated infections are diagnosed and to obtain members’ opinions regarding the process of designating bloodstream infections as publicly reportable CLABSIs.Design. Electronic and paper 11-question survey of infectious-diseases physician members of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Emerging Infections Network (IDSA EIN).Participants. All 1,364 IDSA EIN members were invited to participate.Results. 692 (51%) members responded; 52% of respondents with adult practices reported that more than half of the blood culture samples for intensive care unit (ICU) patients with central lines were drawn through existing lines. A sizable majority of respondents used time to positivity, differential time to positivity when paired blood cultures are used, and quantitative culture of catheter tips when diagnosing CLABSI or determining the source of that bacteremia. When determining whether a bacteremia met the reportable CLABSI definition, a majority used a decision method that involved clinical judgment.Conclusions. Our survey documents a strong preference for drawing 1 set of blood culture samples from a peripheral line and 1 from the central line when evaluating fever in an ICU patient, as recommended by IDSA guidelines and in contrast to current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. Our data show substantial variability when infectious-diseases physicians were asked to determine whether bloodstream infections were primary bacteremias, and therefore subject to public reporting by National Healthcare Safety Network guidelines, or secondary bacteremias, which are not reportable.
© 2012 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.