Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

Strategies to Prevent Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Update

Jonas Marschall MD, Leonard A. Mermel DO ScM, Mohamad Fakih MD MPH, Lynn Hadaway MEd RN BC CRNI, Alexander Kallen MD MPH, Naomi P. O’Grady MD, Ann Marie Pettis RN BSN CIC, Mark E. Rupp MD, Thomas Sandora MD MPH, Lisa L. Maragakis MD MPH and Deborah S. Yokoe MD MPH
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Vol. 35, No. 7 (July 2014), pp. 753-771
DOI: 10.1086/676533
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/676533
Page Count: 19
Subjects: Public Health Health Sciences
  • Download PDF
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item
SHEA/IDSA Practice Recommendation

Strategies to Prevent Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Update

Jonas Marschall, MD,1,2,a
Leonard A. Mermel, DO, ScM,3,a
Mohamad Fakih, MD, MPH,4
Lynn Hadaway, MEd, RN, BC, CRNI,5
Alexander Kallen, MD, MPH,6
Naomi P. O’Grady, MD,7
Ann Marie Pettis, RN, BSN, CIC,8
Mark E. Rupp, MD,9
Thomas Sandora, MD, MPH,10
Lisa L. Maragakis, MD, MPH,11 and
Deborah S. Yokoe, MD, MPH12,
1. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
2. Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
3. Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island
4. St. John Hospital and Medical Center and Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
5. Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc., Milner, Georgia
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
7. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
8. University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
9. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
10. Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
11. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
a These authors contributed equally to this article
    Address correspondence to Leonard A. Mermel, DO, ScM, Division of Infectious Diseases, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI 02903 ().

Purpose

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) prevention efforts. This document updates “Strategies to Prevent Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections in Acute Care Hospitals,”1 published in 2008. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.2

Section 1: Rationale and Statements of Concern

  • I.

    Patients at risk for CLABSIs in acute care facilities

    • A.

      Intensive care unit (ICU) population: the risk of CLABSI in ICU patients is high. Reasons for this include the frequent insertion of multiple catheters, the use of specific types of catheters that are almost exclusively inserted in ICU patients and associated with substantial risk (eg, pulmonary artery catheters with catheter introducers), and the fact that catheters are frequently placed in emergency circumstances, repeatedly accessed each day, and often needed for extended periods of time.3,4

    • B.

      Non-ICU population: although the primary focus of attention over the last 2 decades has been the ICU setting, the majority of CLABSIs occur in hospital units outside the ICU or in outpatients.5-10

    • C.

      Infection prevention and control efforts should include other vulnerable populations, such as patients receiving hemodialysis through catheters,11 intraoperative patients,12 and oncology patients.

    • D.

      Besides central venous catheters (CVCs), peripheral arterial catheters also carry a risk of infection.3

  • II.

    Outcomes associated with hospital-acquired CLABSI

    • A.

      Increased length of hospital stay.13-17

    • B.

      Increased cost (the non-inflation-adjusted attributable cost of CLABSIs has been found to vary from $3,700 to $39,000 per episode14,17-19).

  • III.

    Independent risk factors for CLABSI (in at least 2 published studies)20-25

    • A.

      Factors associated with increased risk.

      • 1.

        Prolonged hospitalization before catheterization

      • 2.

        Prolonged duration of catheterization

      • 3.

        Heavy microbial colonization at the insertion site

      • 4.

        Heavy microbial colonization of the catheter hub

      • 5.

        Internal jugular catheterization

      • 6.

        Femoral catheterization in adults

      • 7.

        Neutropenia

      • 8.

        Prematurity (ie, early gestational age)

      • 9.

        Reduced nurse-to-patient ratio in the ICU26,27

      • 10.

        Total parenteral nutrition

      • 11.

        Substandard catheter care (eg, excessive manipulation of the catheter)

      • 12.

        Transfusion of blood products (in children)

    • B.

      Factors associated with reduced risk.

      • 1.

        Female sex

      • 2.

        Antibiotic administration22,28

      • 3.

        Minocycline-rifampin-impregnated catheters29,30

Section 2: Background—Strategies to Detect CLABSI

  • I.

    Surveillance protocol and definition of CLABSIs

    • A.

      Use consistent surveillance methods and definitions to allow comparison to benchmark data.

    • B.

      Refer to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Manual: Patient Safety Component Protocol for information on the appropriate surveillance methodology, including information about blood specimen collection, and for surveillance definitions of CLABSIs. The relevant sections of the manual are “Identifying Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI) in NHSN,” “Device-Associated Module: Methodology,” and “Device-Associated Module: Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI) Event.”31

      • 1.

        Recent data suggest that interrater reliability using NHSN definitions is lower than expected.32-34 This may also affect the reliability of public reporting. Additionally, the NHSN surveillance definition for CLABSI is different from the clinical definition for catheter-related bloodstream infection.35

Section 3: Background—Strategies to Prevent CLABSI

  • I.

    Existing guidelines and recommendations

    • A.

      Several governmental, public health, and professional organizations have published evidence-based guidelines and/or implementation aids regarding the prevention of CLABSI, including the following:

      • 1.

        The Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention36,37

      • 2.

        The Institute for Healthcare Improvement38

      • 3.

        The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality39

      • 4.

        The American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee40

      • 5.

        The Joint Commission41

      • 6.

        APIC42

      • 7.

        The Infusion Nurses Society43

    • B.

      The recommendations in this document focus on CVCs unless noted otherwise. These recommendations

      • 1.

        Are not stratified on the basis of catheter type (eg, tunneled, implanted, cuffed, noncuffed catheter, and dialysis catheter) and

      • 2.

        May not be applicable for prevention of bloodstream infections with other intravascular devices.

  • II.

    Infrastructure requirements include the following:

    • A.

      An adequately staffed infection prevention and control program responsible for identifying patients who meet the surveillance definition for CLABSI.

    • B.

      Information technology to collect and calculate catheter-days as a denominator when computing rates of CLABSI and patient-days to allow calculation of CVC utilization. Catheter-days from information systems should be validated against a manual method, with a margin of error no greater than ±5%.

    • C.

      Resources to provide appropriate education and training.

    • D.

      Adequate laboratory support for timely processing of specimens and reporting of results.

Section 4: Recommended Strategies for CLABSI Prevention

Recommendations are categorized as either (1) basic practices that should be adopted by all acute care hospitals or (2) special approaches that can be considered for use in locations and/or populations within hospitals when CLABSIs are not controlled by use of basic practices. Basic practices include recommendations where the potential to impact CLABSI risk clearly outweighs the potential for undesirable effects. Special approaches include recommendations where the intervention is likely to reduce CLABSI risk but where there is concern about the risks for undesirable outcomes, where the quality of evidence is low, or where evidence supports the impact of the intervention in select settings (eg, during outbreaks) or for select patient populations. Hospitals can prioritize their efforts by initially focusing on implementing the prevention approaches listed as basic practices. If CLABSI surveillance or other risk assessments suggest that there are ongoing opportunities for improvement, hospitals should then consider adopting some or all of the prevention approaches listed as special approaches. These can be implemented in specific locations or patient populations or can be implemented hospital-wide, depending on outcome data, risk assessment, and/or local requirements. Each infection prevention recommendation is given a quality-of-evidence grade (see Table 1).

Table 1. 
Grading of the Quality of Evidence
GradeDefinition
I. HighHighly confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimated size and direction of the effect. Evidence is rated as high quality when there is a wide range of studies with no major limitations, there is little variation between studies, and the summary estimate has a narrow confidence interval.
II. ModerateThe true effect is likely to be close to the estimated size and direction of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Evidence is rated as moderate quality when there are only a few studies and some have limitations but not major flaws, there is some variation between studies, or the confidence interval of the summary estimate is wide.
III. LowThe true effect may be substantially different from the estimated size and direction of the effect. Evidence is rated as low quality when supporting studies have major flaws, there is important variation between studies, the confidence interval of the summary estimate is very wide, or there are no rigorous studies, only expert consensus.

Note that some of the following measures have been combined into a “prevention bundle” that focuses on catheter insertion (eg, measures B.2, B.3, B.6, B.7, and C.3).44-46 Numerous studies have documented that use of such bundles is effective, sustainable, and cost-effective in both adults and children.47-50 Bundles are most likely to be successful if implemented in a previously established patient safety culture, and their success depends on adherence to individual measures.51 However, recent data suggest that not all components of bundles may be necessary to achieve an effect on CLABSI rates.52 After catheter insertion, maintenance bundles have been proposed to ensure optimal catheter care.53 More data are needed to determine which components of the maintenance bundle are essential in reducing risk.54,55

  • I.

    Basic practices for preventing and monitoring CLABSI: recommended for all acute care hospitals

    • A.

      Before insertion

      • 1.

        Provide easy access to an evidence-based list of indications for CVC use to minimize unnecessary CVC placement (quality of evidence: III).

      • 2.

        Require education of healthcare personnel involved in insertion, care, and maintenance of CVCs about CLABSI prevention (quality of evidence: II).56-60

        • a.

          Include the indications for catheter use, appropriate insertion and maintenance, the risk of CLABSI, and general infection prevention strategies.

        • b.

          Ensure that all healthcare personnel involved in catheter insertion and maintenance complete an educational program regarding basic practices to prevent CLABSI before performing these duties.61,62 Periodic retraining with a competency assessment may be of benefit.63

        • c.

          Ensure that any healthcare professional who inserts a CVC undergoes a credentialing process (as established by the individual healthcare institution) to ensure their competency before independently inserting a CVC.

        • d.

          Reeducate when an institution changes components of the infusion system that requires a change in practice (eg, when an institution’s change of the needleless connector requires a change in nursing practice).

        • e.

          Consider using simulation training for proper catheter insertion technique.64-66

      • 3.

        Bathe ICU patients over 2 months of age with a chlorhexidine preparation on a daily basis (quality of evidence: I).67-70

        • a.

          In long-term acute care hospitals, daily chlorhexidine bathing may also be considered as a preventive measure.71

        • b.

          The role of chlorhexidine bathing in non-ICU patients remains to be determined.72

        • c.

          The optimal choice of antiseptic agents is unresolved for children under 2 months of age. However, chlorhexidine is widely used in children under 2 months of age.73 A US survey found that in the majority of neonatal ICUs (NICUs) chlorhexidine products are used for catheter insertion in this age group.74 For chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)–based topical antiseptic products, the Food and Drug Administration recommends “use with care in premature infants or infants under 2 months of age; these products may cause irritation or chemical burns.” The American Pediatric Surgical Association recommends CHG use but states that “care should be taken in using chlorhexidine in neonates and premature infants because of increased risk of skin irritation and risk of systemic absorption.”40 Concerns in children under 2 months have been noted elsewhere.75 Cutaneous reactions to CHG have also been reported in extremely-low-birth-weight neonates under 48 hours of age;76 however, in a small pilot trial of neonates under 1,000 g and at least 7 days of age, severe contact dermatitis did not occur, although CHG was cutaneously absorbed.77 These findings have not been replicated in a recent trial in neonates weighing more than or equal to 1,500 g.78,79 Some institutions have used chlorhexidine-containing sponge dressings for CVCs79 and chlorhexidine for cleaning CVC insertion sites in children in this age group with minimal risk of such reactions.40 Providers must carefully weigh the potential benefit in preventing CLABSI in children under 2 months and the risks of CHG, recognizing that term and preterm infants may have different risks. Alternative agents, such as povidone-iodine or alcohol, can be used in this age group.80

    • B.

      At insertion

      • 1.

        Have a process in place to ensure adherence to infection prevention practices at the time of CVC insertion in ICU and non-ICU settings, such as a checklist (quality of evidence: II).45,81,82

        • a.

          Ensure and document adherence to aseptic technique.

          • i.

            Checklists have been suggested to ensure optimal insertion practices. If used, the documentation should be done by someone other than the inserter.

          • ii.

            Observation of CVC insertion by a nurse, physician, or other healthcare personnel who has received appropriate education (see above) to ensure that aseptic technique is maintained.

          • iii.

            Such healthcare personnel should be empowered to stop the procedure if breaches in aseptic technique are observed.

      • 2.

        Perform hand hygiene prior to catheter insertion or manipulation (quality of evidence: II).83-87

        • a.

          Use an alcohol-based waterless product or antiseptic soap and water.

          • i.

            Use of gloves does not obviate hand hygiene.

      • 3.

        Avoid using the femoral vein for central venous access in obese adult patients when the catheter is placed under planned and controlled conditions (quality of evidence: I).28,88-90

        • a.

          Additional factors may influence the risk of CLABSI in patients with femoral vein catheters.91,92

        • b.

          Femoral vein catheterization can be done without general anesthesia in children and has not been associated with an increased risk of infection in this population.93

        • c.

          Controversy exists regarding infectious and noninfectious complications associated with different short-term CVC access sites.89,94 The risk and benefit of different insertion sites must be considered on an individual basis with regard to infectious and noninfectious complications (eg, patients with jugular access may have a higher infection risk if they have a concurrent tracheostomy95).

        • d.

          Do not use peripherally inserted CVCs (PICCs) as a strategy to reduce the risk of CLABSI.

          • i.

            The risk of infection with PICCs in ICU patients approaches that of CVCs placed in the subclavian or internal jugular veins.96,97

          • ii.

            The majority of CLABSIs due to PICCs occur in non-ICU settings.98 The PICC-associated CLABSI risk may be different outside the ICU.

      • 4.

        Use an all-inclusive catheter cart or kit (quality of evidence: II).45

        • a.

          A catheter cart or kit that contains all necessary components for aseptic catheter insertion has to be available and easily accessible in all units where CVCs are inserted.

      • 5.

        Use ultrasound guidance for internal jugular catheter insertion (quality of evidence: II).99

        • a.

          Ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein catheterization reduces the risk of CLABSI and of noninfectious complications of CVC placement.100

      • 6.

        Use maximum sterile barrier precautions during CVC insertion (quality of evidence: II).101-107

        • a.

          Use maximal sterile barrier precautions.

          • i.

            A mask, cap, sterile gown, and sterile gloves are to be worn by all healthcare personnel involved in the catheter insertion procedure.

          • ii.

            The patient is to be covered with a large (“full-body”) sterile drape during catheter insertion.

        • b.

          These measures must also be followed when exchanging a catheter over a guidewire.

        • c.

          A prospective randomized study in surgical patients showed no additional benefit for maximal sterile barrier precautions;105 nevertheless, most available evidence suggests risk reduction with this intervention.

      • 7.

        Use an alcoholic chlorhexidine antiseptic for skin preparation (quality of evidence: I).108-111

        • a.

          Before catheter insertion, apply an alcoholic chlorhexidine solution containing more than 0.5% CHG to the insertion site.112

          • i.

            The antiseptic solution must be allowed to dry before making the skin puncture.

    • C.

      After insertion

      • 1.

        Ensure appropriate nurse-to-patient ratio and limit the use of float nurses in ICUs (quality of evidence: I).26,27,113,114

        • a.

          Observational studies suggest that there should be a nurse-to-patient ratio of at least 1 to 2 in ICUs where nurses are managing patients with CVCs and that the number of float nurses working in the ICU environment should be minimized.

      • 2.

        Disinfect catheter hubs, needleless connectors, and injection ports before accessing the catheter (quality of evidence: II).115-119

        • a.

          Before accessing catheter hubs, needleless connectors, or injection ports, vigorously apply mechanical friction with an alcoholic chlorhexidine preparation, 70% alcohol, or povidone-iodine. Alcoholic chlorhexidine may have additional residual activity compared with alcohol for this purpose.120

        • b.

          Apply mechanical friction for no less than 5 seconds to reduce contamination.121,122 It is unclear whether this duration of disinfection can be generalized to needleless connectors not tested in these studies.

        • c.

          Monitor compliance with hub/connector/port disinfection since approximately half of such catheter components are colonized under conditions of standard practice.117,121

      • 3.

        Remove nonessential catheters (quality of evidence: II).123,124

        • a.

          Assess the need for continued intravascular access on a daily basis during multidisciplinary rounds. Remove catheters not required for patient care.

        • b.

          Audits to determine whether CVCs are routinely removed after their intended use may be helpful.125,126 Both simple and multifaceted interventions are effective at reducing unnecessary CVC use.127,128

      • 4.

        For nontunneled CVCs in adults and children, change transparent dressings and perform site care with a chlorhexidine-based antiseptic every 5–7 days or immediately if the dressing is soiled, loose, or damp; change gauze dressings every 2 days or earlier if the dressing is soiled, loose, or damp (quality of evidence: II).129-131

        • a.

          Less-frequent dressing changes may be used for selected NICU patients to reduce the risk of catheter dislodgement.

        • b.

          If there is drainage from the catheter exit site, use gauze dressings instead of transparent dressings until drainage resolves.

      • 5.

        Replace administration sets not used for blood, blood products, or lipids at intervals not longer than 96 hours (quality of evidence: II).132,133

        • a.

          The optimal replacement intervals of intermittently used administration sets are currently unresolved.

      • 6.

        Use antimicrobial ointments for hemodialysis catheter-insertion sites (quality of evidence: I).134-140

        • a.

          Polysporin “triple” (where available) or povidone-iodine ointment should be applied to hemodialysis catheter insertion if compatible with the catheter material.

          • i.

            Certain manufacturers have indicated that the glycol constituents of ointments should not be used on their polyurethane catheters.

        • b.

          Mupirocin ointment should not be applied to the catheter-insertion site due to the risks of facilitating mupirocin resistance and the potential damage to polyurethane catheters.

      • 7.

        Perform surveillance for CLABSI in ICU and non-ICU settings (quality of evidence: I).6,7,141,142

        • a.

          Measure the unit-specific incidence of CLABSI (CLABSIs per 1,000 catheter-days) and report the data on a regular basis to the units, physician and nursing leadership, and hospital administrators overseeing the units.

        • b.

          Compare CLABSI incidence with historical data for individual units and with national rates (ie, NHSN143).

        • c.

          Audit surveillance as necessary to minimize variation in interobserver reliability.32,33

        • d.

          Surveillance for CLABSI outside the ICU setting requires additional resources.144 Electronic surveillance is an option in these settings.145

  • II.

    Special approaches for preventing CLABSI

    A number of special approaches are currently available for use. Perform a CLABSI risk assessment before considering implementing any of these approaches, and take potential adverse events and cost into consideration. Although it is reasonable to evaluate the utility of technology-based interventions when CLABSI rates are above the institutional or unit-based threshold, this is also an opportunity to review practices and consider behavioral changes that may be instituted to reduce CLABSI risk. These special approaches are recommended for use in locations and/or populations within the hospital with unacceptably high CLABSI rates despite implementation of the basic CLABSI prevention strategies listed above. These measures may not be indicated if institutional goals have been consistently achieved.

    • 1.

      Use antiseptic- or antimicrobial-impregnated CVCs in adult patients (quality of evidence: I).29,30,146-152

      • a.

        The risk of CLABSI is reduced with some currently marketed antiseptic-impregnated (eg, chlorhexidine–silver sulfadiazine) catheters and antimicrobial-impregnated (eg, minocycline-rifampin) catheters. Use such catheters in the following instances.

        • i.

          Hospital units or patient populations have a CLABSI rate above institutional goals despite compliance with basic CLABSI prevention practices. Some evidence suggests that use of antimicrobial CVCs may have no additional benefit in patient care units that have already established a low incidence of catheter infections.153

        • ii.

          Patients have limited venous access and a history of recurrent CLABSI.

        • iii.

          Patients are at heightened risk of severe sequelae from a CLABSI (eg, patients with recently implanted intravascular devices, such as a prosthetic heart valve or aortic graft).

      • b.

        Monitor patients for untoward effects, such as anaphylaxis.154

    • 2.

      Use chlorhexidine-containing dressings for CVCs in patients over 2 months of age (quality of evidence: I).80,155-160

      • a.

        It is unclear whether there is additional benefit to using a chlorhexidine-containing dressing if daily chlorhexidine bathing is already established and vice versa.

    • 3.

      Use an antiseptic-containing hub/connector cap/port protector to cover connectors (quality of evidence: I).161-165

    • 4.

      Use silver zeolite–impregnated umbilical catheters in preterm infants (in countries where it is approved for use in children; quality of evidence: II).166

      • a.

        Observational studies suggest that other antimicrobial-impregnated catheters appear to be safe and hold promise in pediatric ICU patients.167-169

    • 5.

      Use antimicrobial locks for CVCs (quality of evidence: I).170-175

      • a.

        Antibiotic locks are created by filling the lumen of the catheter with a supratherapeutic concentration of an antimicrobial solution and leaving the solution in place until the catheter hub is reaccessed. Such an approach can reduce the risk of CLABSI. Because of concerns regarding the potential for the emergence of resistance in exposed organisms, use antimicrobial locks as a preventative strategy for the following:

        • i.

          Patients with long-term hemodialysis catheters.176

        • ii.

          Patients with limited venous access and a history of recurrent CLABSI.

        • iii.

          Patients who are at heightened risk of severe sequelae from a CLABSI (eg, patients with recently implanted intravascular devices, such as a prosthetic heart valve or aortic graft).

      • b.

        To minimize systemic toxicity, aspirate rather than flush the antimicrobial lock solution after the dwell time has elapsed.177-180 For additional guidance, see the IDSA’s “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infection.”35

    • 6.

      Use recombinant tissue plasminogen activating factor once weekly after hemodialysis in patients undergoing hemodialysis through a CVC (quality of evidence: II).181

  • III.

    Approaches that should not be considered a routine part of CLABSI prevention

    • 1.

      Do not use antimicrobial prophylaxis for short-term or tunneled catheter insertion or while catheters are in situ (quality of evidence: I).182-186

      • a.

        Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis is not recommended.

    • 2.

      Do not routinely replace central venous or arterial catheters (quality of evidence: I).187-189

      • a.

        Routine catheter replacement is not recommended.

  • IV.

    Unresolved issues

    • 1.

      Routine use of needleless connectors as a CLABSI prevention strategy before an assessment of risks, benefits, and education regarding proper use.190-194

      • a.

        Multiple devices are currently available, but the optimal design for preventing infections is unresolved. The original purpose of needleless connectors was to prevent needlestick injuries during intermittent use. No data regarding their use with continuous infusions are available.

    • 2.

      Intravenous therapy teams for reducing CLABSI rates.77,195

      • a.

        Studies have shown that an intravenous therapy team responsible for insertion and maintenance of peripheral intravenous catheters reduces the risk of bloodstream infections.196 However, few studies have been performed regarding the impact of intravenous therapy teams on CLABSI rates.

    • 3.

      Surveillance of other types of catheters (eg, peripheral arterial or venous catheters).3,4

      • a.

        Peripheral arterial catheters and peripheral venous catheters are not included in most surveillance systems, although they are associated with risk of bloodstream infection independent of CVCs.197,198 Future surveillance systems may need to include bloodstream infections associated with these types of catheters.

    • 4.

      Estimating catheter-days for determining incidence density of CLABSI.

      • a.

        Surveillance can be facilitated in settings with a limited workforce by estimating the number of catheter-days.199-201

    • 5.

      Use of silver-coated catheter connectors are associated with reduced intraluminal contamination in ex vivo catheters.202

      • a.

        There is a paucity of clinical evidence regarding the risk reduction with their routine use or use of other antimicrobial catheter connectors.

    • 6.

      Standard, nonantimicrobial transparent dressings and CLABSI risk.

      • a.

        A recent meta-analysis reported an association between CLABSI and transparent dressing use. However, the source studies for the meta-analysis reporting this association were of low quality.203

    • 7.

      Impact of the use of chlorhexidine-based products on bacterial resistance to chlorhexidine.

      • a.

        Widespread use of chlorhexidine-based products (eg, use of chlorhexidine bathing, antisepsis, and dressings) may promote reduced chlorhexidine susceptibility in bacterial strains.204 However, testing for chlorhexidine susceptibility is not standardized. The clinical impact of reduced chlorhexidine susceptibility in gram-negative bacteria is unknown.

Section 5: Performance Measures

  • I.

    Internal reporting

    These performance measures are intended to support internal hospital quality improvement efforts205,206 and do not necessarily address external reporting needs. The process and outcome measures suggested here are derived from published guidelines, other relevant literature, and the opinion of the authors. Report process and outcome measures to senior hospital leadership, nursing leadership, and clinicians who care for patients at risk for CLABSI.

    • A.

      Process measures

      • 1.

        Compliance with CVC insertion guidelines as documented on an insertion checklist.

        • a.

          Assess compliance with the checklist in all hospital settings where CVCs are inserted (eg, ICUs, emergency departments, operating rooms, radiology, and general nursing units) and assign a healthcare personnel familiar with catheter care to this task.

        • b.

          Measure the percentage of CVC insertion procedures in which compliance with appropriate hand hygiene, use of maximal sterile barrier precautions, and use of chlorhexidine-based cutaneous antisepsis of the insertion site is documented:

          • i.

            Numerator: number of CVC insertions that have documented the use of all 3 interventions (hand hygiene, maximal barrier precautions, and chlorhexidine-based cutaneous antiseptic use) performed at the time of CVC insertion.

          • ii.

            Denominator: number of all CVC insertions.

          • iii.

            Multiply by 100 so that the measure is expressed as a percentage.

      • 2.

        Compliance with documentation of daily assessment regarding the need for continuing CVC access.

        • a.

          Measure the percentage of patients with a CVC where there is documentation of daily assessment:

          • i.

            Numerator: number of patients with a CVC who have documentation of daily assessment.

          • ii.

            Denominator: number of patients with a CVC.

          • iii.

            Multiply by 100 so that the measure is expressed as a percentage.

      • 3.

        Compliance with cleaning of catheter hubs and injection ports before they are accessed (or compliance with use of antiseptic-containing port protectors).

        • a.

          Assess compliance through observations of practice:

          • i.

            Numerator: number of times that a catheter hub or port (or port protector) is observed to be cleaned before being accessed.

          • ii.

            Denominator: number of times a catheter hub or port (or port protector) is observed to be accessed.

          • iii.

            Multiply by 100 so that the measure is expressed as a percentage.

    • B.

      Outcome measures

      • 1.

        CLABSI rate.

        • a.

          Use NHSN definitions.

          • i.

            Numerator: number of CLABSIs in each unit assessed (using NHSN definitions).

          • ii.

            Denominator: total number of catheter-days in each unit assessed (using NHSN definitions).

          • iii.

            Multiply by 1,000 so that the measure is expressed as the number of CLABSIs per 1,000 catheter-days.

          • iv.

            Risk adjustment: stratify CLABSI rates by type of patient care unit.207-209

            • (a)

              Report comparisons based on historical data and NHSN data, if available.143

  • II.

    External reporting

    There are many challenges in providing useful information to consumers and other stakeholders while preventing unintended consequences of public reporting of HAIs.210,211 Recommendations for public reporting of HAIs have been provided by HICPAC,212 the Healthcare-Associated Infection Working Group of the Joint Public Policy Committee,213 and the National Quality Forum.214

    • A.

      State and federal requirements

      • 1.

        Hospitals in states that have mandatory reporting requirements for CLABSI must collect and report the data required by the state.

      • 2.

        For information on state and federal requirements, contact your state or local health department.

    • B.

      External quality initiatives

      • 1.

        Hospitals that participate in external quality initiatives or state programs must collect and report the data required by the initiative or program.

      • 2.

        Problems with interrater reliability may affect comparisons between different institutions.

Section 6: Examples of Implementation Strategies

Accountability is an essential principle for preventing HAIs. It provides the necessary translational link between science and implementation. Without clear accountability, scientifically based implementation strategies will be used in an inconsistent and fragmented way, decreasing their effectiveness in preventing HAIs. Accountability begins with the chief executive officer and other senior leaders who provide the imperative for HAI prevention, thereby making HAI prevention an organizational priority. Senior leadership is accountable for providing adequate resources needed for effective implementation of an HAI prevention program. These resources include necessary personnel (clinical and nonclinical), education, and equipment (Table 2).

Table 2. 
Fundamental Elements of Accountability for Healthcare-Associated Infection Prevention
Senior management is responsible for ensuring that the healthcare system supports an infection prevention and control (IPC) program that effectively prevents healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and the transmission of epidemiologically important pathogens
Senior management is accountable for ensuring that an adequate number of trained personnel are assigned to the IPC program and adequate staffing of other departments that play a key role in HAI prevention (eg, environmental services)
Senior management is accountable for ensuring that healthcare personnel, including licensed and nonlicensed personnel, are adequately trained and competent to perform their job responsibilities
Direct healthcare providers (such as physicians, nurses, aides, and therapists) and ancillary personnel (such as environmental service and equipment processing personnel) are responsible for ensuring that appropriate IPC practices are used at all times (including hand hygiene, standard and isolation precautions, and cleaning and disinfection of equipment and the environment)
Senior and unit leaders are responsible for holding personnel accountable for their actions
IPC leadership is responsible for ensuring that an active program to identify HAIs is implemented, that HAI data are analyzed and regularly provided to those who can use the information to improve the quality of care (eg, unit staff, clinicians, and hospital administrators), and that evidence-based practices are incorporated into the program
Senior and unit leaders are accountable for ensuring that appropriate training and educational programs to prevent HAIs are developed and provided to personnel, patients, and families
Personnel from the IPC program, the laboratory, and information technology departments are responsible for ensuring that systems are in place to support the surveillance program

Insertion of CVCs is one of the most common procedures performed at the patient’s bedside. The insertion procedure represents only one aspect of the risk for CLABSI, with the risk extending to all aspects of nursing care and maintenance during the CVC dwell time. CLABSI prevention strategies have expanded as new studies are published. Additionally, experience with implementing these strategies is increasing. This discussion will focus on strategies for engagement, education, execution, and evaluation of CLABSI prevention efforts. Published literature and expert opinion form the basis for the following recommendations.

  • I.

    Engage

    The first step toward successful reduction of CLABSIs is to engage both frontline and senior leadership champions in the process and outcome improvement plan.215

    • A.

      Develop a multidisciplinary team that sets goals, defines the steps in the implementation process, and monitors progress in achieving the goals. Regular team meetings should be held.216

    • B.

      Focus on a culture of safety, which includes teamwork, technical processes, and promotion of accountability for prevention of CLABSI.

    • C.

      Make the problem real to all of those involved to increase buy-in. One strategy to accomplish this is to identify a patient in the unit who has suffered harm as a result of developing a CLABSI217 and then share that story with the team.

    • D.

      Identify and involve local champions. Engage infusion nurses or vascular access specialists as team members. Include formal (eg, medical or nursing directors, charge nurses) and informal (eg, frontline) leaders.218 Local champions increase the chance for success by engaging and educating peers, thereby increasing buy-in and ownership by all involved.215 These champions can influence the development of strategies that are a good match with the unit culture. Frequent communication between champions and frontline staff is imperative if concerns are to be resolved and improvement sustained.215

    • E.

      Share the outcome data regularly with each unit. Data can be represented as the monthly CLABSI rate and/or the number of days since last infection.217 Consider reporting CLABSI rates as the standardized infection ratio (SIR). Displaying a trend line is also useful.

    • F.

      Utilize peer networks. Voluntary peer networking between hospitals can promote and ensure compliance with evidence-based practices. It also facilitates collaboration, performance evaluation, and accountability. All can benefit from best practices being shared, and brainstorming can be done to solve shared problems.219

  • II.

    Educate

    • A.

      Change in human behavior is the goal of educational programs about CVC insertion, care, and maintenance. Various educational methods and strategies have been studied to reduce CLABSI. In general, these educational interventions showed improvements in CLABSI rates; however, more study is needed to clearly understand the most effective teaching strategies, content taught, length of presentation, and frequency for repeating the program.220,221 Both extraluminal and intraluminal avenues for CVC infection should be addressed in the educational plan.

    • B.

      Educational programs for all healthcare personnel involved with the insertion and care of all types of CVCs should address knowledge, critical thinking, behavior and psychomotor skills, and attitudes and beliefs. Identifying and analyzing gaps in these areas leads to the selection of measureable learning objectives, course content, and corresponding appropriate teaching strategies. The value of infection prevention should be emphasized through all education efforts.221,222

    • C.

      Adult learners employ multiple ways to learn; therefore, multiple teaching strategies should be used. This includes self-directed study guides, instructor-led courses, and small- and large-group discussions. The planning group for the educational offering should have representatives from multiple professions, including physicians, nurse managers, staff nurses, infusion nurse specialists, and infection preventionists.223-225 The learner should be actively involved with the teaching methods, as lecture alone has been shown to be less effective with retention of information and changes in behavior.226,227 Delivery methods should be chosen on the basis of the learners’ needs and availability, along with the technical capabilities of the facility. This includes printed learning packages; audiovisual formats, such as slide presentations and videos; skills labs; journal clubs and nursing grand rounds; and computer-, Internet-, or DVD-based packages of learning materials.58,224,228-231 Multiple delivery methods tailored to specific problems or issues and given intermittently over time produce greater reduction in CLABSI than a single structured offering or lecture.61,232

    • D.

      Other educational job aides should be readily accessible in the clinical setting for quick reminders and reinforcement of the appropriate procedures. This includes but is not limited to facility policies and procedures, posters, fact sheets, small pocket cards, e-mail messages, and messages via computer screen savers.233,234

    • E.

      To enhance patient safety, learning CVC insertion techniques requires a structured educational program focusing on knowledge acquisition and performance of insertions in a simulated environment, followed by supervised performance on patients.43,235-237 A meta-analysis of 20 studies using simulation for CVC insertion showed benefits in learner performance, knowledge, and confidence.66 Simulation for CVC insertion includes use of anatomical models and computer-based virtual reality.238 Other approaches have tried to simulate the “feel” of tissue puncture.239

    • F.

      All healthcare professionals should have documented competency with CVC insertion, care, and maintenance before being allowed to practice without direct supervision. A standardized competency assessment checklist should be used to assess and document competency of each individual performing CVC insertion and procedures related to care and maintenance (eg, dressing changes). Competency assessment checklists should be evaluated for interrater reliability and validity. The professional performing competency assessment of the learner should be competent with the procedure being assessed.220,240

    • G.

      Changes of products, devices, or technology used in the insertion and care of CVCs require adequate device training for all healthcare personnel expected to use the product(s). This training follows a period of device evaluation and its impact on CLABSI. Most device manufacturers employ personnel with clinical experience to provide product training, and this resource should not be overlooked.

    • H.

      Healthcare professionals using CVCs for infusion should have documented competency with all procedures, including but not limited to catheter stabilization, catheter dressing changes, intravenous administration set management, disinfection of needleless connectors, accessing implanted ports, and flushing and locking the CVC.43 This would involve demonstration of procedures in a simulation lab or in the clinical setting while being observed by a qualified professional.241,242

    • I.

      Assessment of educational programs includes the learner’s satisfaction with the program, changes in knowledge, and changes in work performance. Written tests are the most common form of measurement; however, this is limited to knowledge acquisition only and may produce anxiety in many adult learners. Other forms of assessment include contributions to group discussions and observation of performance using simulation. Measurement of healthcare professionals’ current level of knowledge about CVC insertion and care can provide valuable information for designing educational programs.243,244

    • J.

      Prior to an educational program, there should be planning for transfer of the learning from the classroom to the clinical setting. This includes patient care assignments to allow for application of new knowledge and practice of new skills, support and encouragement from leaders and managers, and the ability to follow up on issues or concerns that arise from clinical performance.

    • K.

      Education of the patient and/or family, as appropriate, is required for all CVC care procedures (eg, hand hygiene, dressing changes, intravenous administration set management, and flushing and locking), especially when transfer to an alternative setting (eg, home care, ambulatory setting) is planned.43,242

    • L.

      Education of facility administrators is necessary to ensure adequate funding and implementation of CLABSI prevention.242 Additionally, the goal of zero tolerance for CLABSI may be set by the chief officers of an institution;245 however, whether this goal can be reached depends on a number of factors.

  • III.

    Execute

    • A.

      Consider the use of quality improvement methodologies, such as Lean Six Sigma, Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program, Team STEPPS, Plan-Do-Study-Act, and the like, to structure prevention efforts. Various performance improvement tools can be used, such as dashboards and score cards, to share data with stakeholders.

    • B.

      Standardize care processes. This can be done through implementation of guidelines, bundles, and protocols that address both insertion and maintenance of central lines. Consider conducting structured daily multidisciplinary rounds. During rounds, discuss whether the patient still requires the central line, patient goals for the day, and potential barriers or safety issues.217 Empower staff to report process defects or barriers to implementation encountered to appropriate leadership. This can facilitate rapid intervention and process improvement. Assign accountability for adherence to specific departments or functions.

    • C.

      Create redundancy. Build redundancy or independent checks into the care delivery process to increase staff compliance. This can be done by incorporating visual cues as reminders for proper procedures. Implement a line insertion and line maintenance checklist both inside and outside ICUs. Consider the use of screen-saver messages, posters, banners, fact sheets, preprinted order sets, pocket cards, and the like to educate and serve as reminders for staff.217,218

    • D.

      Consider participating in a CLABSI reduction collaborative. Collaboratives provide an organization with the opportunity to discover and share best practices and utilize comparative outcome data.

  • IV.

    Evaluate

    • A.

      Multidisciplinary teams should be used to form quality improvement collaboratives to set goals and identify the key factors to be measured. This team should have representatives from administration, all professions, and clinical nursing units.246,247 These teams may represent one hospital or many different hospitals.54,248,249

    • B.

      Evaluation involves both process and outcome measurement.246 Differences between age groups should also be considered (eg, neonates, pediatrics, and adults).54,249,250

    • C.

      Process measurement includes but is not limited to compliance with insertion bundles, CVC utilization by insertion site or type (eg, femoral catheters vs other CVC sites; PICCs vs centrally inserted lines), the condition of CVC dressing and timely dressing changes, and integrity and appropriate management of needleless connectors, other add-on devices, and intravenous administration sets.43,251,252 Device utilization is defined as the number of catheter-days divided by the number of patient-days.245

    • D.

      Establish baseline compliance with evidence-based practices for line maintenance, such as the presence of clean and intact dressings.

    • E.

      Outcome measurement is the incidence rate of CLABSI and other infections associated with all types of vascular access devices (eg, exit-site infection, suppurative thrombophlebitis). Consider reporting CLABSI rates as SIR.

    • F.

      Process and outcome data should be linked to initial and ongoing competency assessment. Initial competency should be assessed at employment, after orientation, and with the introduction of new equipment or technology. Ongoing competency assessment is determined by process and outcome data with the facility deciding the frequency for repeated competency assessment.43

    • G.

      Measurement of education outcomes is needed on several levels. The learner’s satisfaction with the program is assessed by completion of the evaluation form immediately following completion of the program. This form also includes the learner’s self-assessment of achieving the learning objectives. The next level is measuring the change in learner’s knowledge, most often accomplished by comparison of scores on written pre- and posttests. The third level is to measure the actual change in behavior in clinical practice following the completion of the program. Using only the first and second levels of measurement will not ensure that a change in clinical behavior will occur.

      Numerous factors affect CLABSI surveillance, including CVC type, CLABSI definition, blood culturing practices and written policies, laboratory practices, and staff attitudes and beliefs. Standardization of these factors facilitates benchmarking within and between organizations. Additionally, variations in these determinants could impact publicly reported CLABSI rates and influence reimbursement for hospital-acquired conditions.32,247

    • H.

      Surveillance for CLABSI outside the ICU is becoming more prevalent, especially with increasing use of electronic methods for data collection.253,254

    • I.

      Feedback to all healthcare staff is critical for the success of any evaluation program. Unit-based recognition of achievement of low CLABSI rates or the length of time between CLABSI events is a useful method to encourage staff involvement. The goals for improvement should be clearly and frequently articulated. Audit compliance with completion of insertion checklists and share this data with the staff. Other forms of feedback include periodic (eg, monthly, quarterly) communication (eg, e-mail messages, written reports) of process measurement data: posters, reports, or other forms of communication with graphs showing cumulative compliance with process measures.245,250,255,256

Acknowledgments

Disclaimer. A.K.—The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Potential conflicts of interest. J.M. reports receiving a speaker honorarium from Gilead Sciences Switzerland. L.A.M. reports serving as an advisor/consultant for ICU Medical, Fresenius Medical Care, Bard Access Systems, Marvao Medical Devices, CareFusion, 3M Healthcare, Catheter Connections, Semprus Biosciences, and Sharklet Technologies. L.H. reports serving as an advisor/consultant for B Braun Medical, BD Medical, Excelsior Medical, Ivera Medical, Access Scientific, 3M, and Baxter Healthcare. A.M.P. reports receiving speaking fees from Bard and serving as a speaker and author for Covidien. M.E.R reports serving as an advisor/consultant for 3M, Ariste, Semprus, and Sharklet Technologies and receiving honoraria from Baxter and CareFusion. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1. Marschall J, Mermel LA, Classen D, et al. Strategies to prevent central line–associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(suppl 1):S22–S30.
  2. 2. Yokoe DS, Anderson DJ, Berenholtz SM, et al. Introduction to “A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Updates.” Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35(5):455–459.
  3. 3. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81(9):1159–1171.
  4. 4. Esteve F, Pujol M, Limon E, et al. Bloodstream infection related to catheter connections: a prospective trial of two connection systems. J Hosp Infect 2007;67(1):30–34.
  5. 5. Climo M, Diekema D, Warren DK, et al. Prevalence of the use of central venous access devices within and outside of the intensive care unit: results of a survey among hospitals in the Prevention Epicenter Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24(12):942–945.
  6. 6. Vonberg RP, Behnke M, Geffers C, et al. Device-associated infection rates for non–intensive care unit patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(4):357–361.
  7. 7. Marschall J, Leone C, Jones M, Nihill D, Fraser VJ, Warren DK. Catheter-associated bloodstream infections in general medical patients outside the intensive care unit: a surveillance study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(8):905–909.
  8. 8. Vital signs: central line–associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60(8):243–248.
  9. 9. Kallen AJ, Patel PR, O’Grady NP. Preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections outside the intensive care unit: expanding prevention to new settings. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51(3):335–341.
  10. 10. Zingg W, Sandoz L, Inan C, et al. Hospital-wide survey of the use of central venous catheters. J Hosp Infect 2011;77(4):304–308.
  11. 11. Xue H, Ix JH, Wang W, et al. Hemodialysis access usage patterns in the incident dialysis year and associated catheter-related complications. Am J Kidney Dis 2013;61(1):123–130.
  12. 12. Loftus RW, Brown JR, Koff MD, et al. Multiple reservoirs contribute to intraoperative bacterial transmission. Anesth Analg 2012;114(6):1236–1248.
  13. 13. Pittet D, Tarara D, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients: excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1994;271(20):1598–1601.
  14. 14. Digiovine B, Chenoweth C, Watts C, Higgins M. The attributable mortality and costs of primary nosocomial bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160(3):976–181.
  15. 15. Renaud B, Brun-Buisson C. Outcomes of primary and catheter-related bacteremia: a cohort and case-control study in critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163(7):1584–1590.
  16. 16. Dimick JB, Pelz RK, Consunji R, Swoboda SM, Hendrix CW, Lipsett PA. Increased resource use associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg 2001;136(2):229–234.
  17. 17. Warren DK, Quadir WW, Hollenbeak CS, Elward AM, Cox MJ, Fraser VJ. Attributable cost of catheter-associated bloodstream infections among intensive care patients in a nonteaching hospital. Crit Care Med 2006;34(8):2084–2089.
  18. 18. Mermel LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000;132(5):391–402.
  19. 19. Elward AM, Hollenbeak CS, Warren DK, Fraser VJ. Attributable cost of nosocomial primary bloodstream infection in pediatric intensive care unit patients. Pediatrics 2005;115(4):868–872.
  20. 20. Mermel LA. Infections caused by intravascular devices. In: Pfeiffer JA, ed. APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 2000:30–38.
  21. 21. Almuneef MA, Memish ZA, Balkhy HH, Hijazi O, Cunningham G, Francis C. Rate, risk factors and outcomes of catheter-related bloodstream infection in a paediatric intensive care unit in Saudi Arabia. J Hosp Infect 2006;62(2):207–213.
  22. 22. Alonso-Echanove J, Edwards JR, Richards MJ, et al. Effect of nurse staffing and antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters on the risk for bloodstream infections in intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24(12):916–925.
  23. 23. Lorente L, Henry C, Martin MM, Jimenez A, Mora ML. Central venous catheter–related infection in a prospective and observational study of 2,595 catheters. Crit Care 2005;9(6):R631–R635.
  24. 24. Rey C, Alvarez F, De-La-Rua V, et al. Intervention to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections in a pediatric intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2011;37(4):678–685.
  25. 25. Lorente L, Jimenez A, Naranjo C, et al. Higher incidence of catheter-related bacteremia in jugular site with tracheostomy than in femoral site. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(3):311–313.
  26. 26. Fridkin SK, Pear SM, Williamson TH, Galgiani JN, Jarvis WR. The role of understaffing in central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17(3):150–158.
  27. 27. Cimiotti JP, Haas J, Saiman L, Larson EL. Impact of staffing on bloodstream infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160(8):832–836.
  28. 28. Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;286(6):700–707.
  29. 29. Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J, et al; Texas Medical Center Catheter Study Group. Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections: a randomized, double-blind trial. Ann Intern Med 1997;127(4):267–274.
  30. 30. Hanna H, Benjamin R, Chatzinikolaou I, et al. Long-term silicone central venous catheters impregnated with minocycline and rifampin decrease rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection in cancer patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(15):3163–3171.
  31. 31. National Healthcare Safety Network, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Manual: Patient Safety Component Protocol. July 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/4PSC_CLABScurrent.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2013.
  32. 32. Niedner MF. The harder you look, the more you find: catheter-associated bloodstream infection surveillance variability. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(8):585–595.
  33. 33. Lin MY, Hota B, Khan YM, et al. Quality of traditional surveillance for public reporting of nosocomial bloodstream infection rates. JAMA 2010;304(18):2035–2041.
  34. 34. Tomlinson D, Mermel LA, Ethier MC, Matlow A, Gillmeister B, Sung L. Defining bloodstream infections related to central venous catheters in patients with cancer: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis 2011;53(7):697–710.
  35. 35. Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49(1):1–45.
  36. 36. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51(RR-10):1–29.
  37. 37. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(9):e162–e193.
  38. 38. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. http://www.ihi.org. March 11, 2014.
  39. 39. Saint S. Prevention of intravascular catheter-associated infections. In: Making Health Care Safer. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2001. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ptsafety/, chapter 16. March 11, 2014.
  40. 40. Huang EY, Chen C, Abdullah F, et al. Strategies for the prevention of central venous catheter infections: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee systematic review. J Pediatr Surg 2011;46(10):2000–2011.
  41. 41. The Joint Commission. Preventing Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections: A Global Challenge, A Global Perspective. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: The Joint Commission, 2012. http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/CLABSI_Monograph.pdf. March 11, 2014.
  42. 42. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC). Guide to the Elimination of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections. Chicago: APIC, 2009.
  43. 43. Infusion Nurses Society. Infusion nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 2011;S34.
  44. 44. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006;355(26):2725–2732.
  45. 45. Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA, et al. Eliminating catheter-related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2004;32(10):2014–2020.
  46. 46. Reduction in central line–associated bloodstream infections among patients in intensive care units—Pennsylvania, April 2001–March 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54(40):1013–1016.
  47. 47. Kim JS, Holtom P, Vigen C. Reduction of catheter-related bloodstream infections through the use of a central venous line bundle: epidemiologic and economic consequences. Am J Infect Control 2011;39(8):640–646.
  48. 48. Halton KA, Cook D, Paterson DL, Safdar N, Graves N. Cost-effectiveness of a central venous catheter care bundle. PLoS ONE 2010;5(9):e12815.
  49. 49. Helder O, van den Hoogen A, de Boer C, van Goudoever J, Verboon-Maciolek M, Kornelisse R. Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bloodstream infections in infants admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2013;50(6):819–831.
  50. 50. Pronovost PJ, Goeschel CA, Colantuoni E, et al. Sustaining reductions in catheter related bloodstream infections in Michigan intensive care units: observational study. BMJ 2010;340:c309.
  51. 51. Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Goeschel CA, et al. Creating high reliability in health care organizations. Health Serv Res 2006;41(4 pt 2):1599–1617.
  52. 52. Furuya EY, Dick A, Perencevich EN, Pogorzelska M, Goldmann D, Stone PW. Central line bundle implementation in US intensive care units and impact on bloodstream infections. PLoS ONE 2011;6(1):e15452.
  53. 53. Guerin K, Wagner J, Rains K, Bessesen M. Reduction in central line–associated bloodstream infections by implementation of a postinsertion care bundle. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(6):430–433.
  54. 54. Miller MR, Griswold M, Harris JM 2nd, et al. Decreasing PICU catheter-associated bloodstream infections: NACHRI’s quality transformation efforts. Pediatrics 2010;125(2):206–213.
  55. 55. Miller MR, Niedner MF, Huskins WC, et al. Reducing PICU central line–associated bloodstream infections: 3-year results. Pediatrics 2011;128(5):e1077–e1083.
  56. 56. Sherertz RJ, Ely EW, Westbrook DM, et al. Education of physicians-in-training can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med 2000;132(8):641–648.
  57. 57. Eggimann P, Harbarth S, Constantin MN, Touveneau S, Chevrolet JC, Pittet D. Impact of a prevention strategy targeted at vascular-access care on incidence of infections acquired in intensive care. Lancet 2000;355(9218):1864–1868.
  58. 58. Coopersmith CM, Rebmann TL, Zack JE, et al. Effect of an education program on decreasing catheter-related bloodstream infections in the surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2002;30(1):59–64.
  59. 59. Warren DK, Zack JE, Cox MJ, Cohen MM, Fraser VJ. An educational intervention to prevent catheter-associated bloodstream infections in a nonteaching, community medical center. Crit Care Med 2003;31(7):1959–1963.
  60. 60. Warren DK, Zack JE, Mayfield JL, et al. The effect of an education program on the incidence of central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infection in a medical ICU. Chest 2004;126(5):1612–1618.
  61. 61. Lobo RD, Levin AS, Oliveira MS, et al. Evaluation of interventions to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infection: continuous tailored education versus one basic lecture. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(6):440–448.
  62. 62. Cherry MG, Brown JM, Neal T, Ben Shaw N. What features of educational interventions lead to competence in aseptic insertion and maintenance of CV catheters in acute care? BEME Guide 15. Med Teach 2010;32(3):198–218.
  63. 63. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Assessing Hospital Staff Competence. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission Resources, 2007.
  64. 64. Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Feinglass J, McGaghie WC, Wayne DB. Use of simulation-based education to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(15):1420–1423.
  65. 65. Khouli H, Jahnes K, Shapiro J, et al. Performance of medical residents in sterile techniques during central vein catheterization: randomized trial of efficacy of simulation-based training. Chest 2011;139(1):80–87.
  66. 66. Ma IW, Brindle ME, Ronksley PE, Lorenzetti DL, Sauve RS, Ghali WA. Use of simulation-based education to improve outcomes of central venous catheterization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2011;86(9):1137–1147.
  67. 67. Bleasdale SC, Trick WE, Gonzalez IM, Lyles RD, Hayden MK, Weinstein RA. Effectiveness of chlorhexidine bathing to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infections in medical intensive care unit patients. Arch Intern Med 2007;167(19):2073–2079.
  68. 68. O’Horo JC, Silva GL, Munoz-Price LS, Safdar N. The efficacy of daily bathing with chlorhexidine for reducing healthcare-associated bloodstream infections: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(3):257–267.
  69. 69. Montecalvo MA, McKenna D, Yarrish R, et al. Chlorhexidine bathing to reduce central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infection: impact and sustainability. Am J Med 2012;125(5):505–511.
  70. 70. Milstone AM, Elward A, Song X, et al. Daily chlorhexidine bathing to reduce bacteraemia in critically ill children: a multicentre, cluster-randomised, crossover trial. Lancet 2013;381(9872):1099–1106.
  71. 71. Munoz-Price LS, Hota B, Stemer A, Weinstein RA. Prevention of bloodstream infections by use of daily chlorhexidine baths for patients at a long-term acute care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30(11):1031–1035.
  72. 72. Medina A, Serratt T, Pelter M, Brancamp T. Decreasing central line–associated bloodstream infections in the non-ICU population. J Nurs Care Qual 2014;29(2):133–140.
  73. 73. Tamma PD, Aucott SW, Milstone AM. Chlorhexidine use in the neonatal intensive care unit: results from a national survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(8):846–849.
  74. 74. Bryant KA, Zerr DM, Huskins WC, Milstone AM. The past, present, and future of healthcare-associated infection prevention in pediatrics: catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(suppl 1):S27–S31.
  75. 75. Chapman AK, Aucott SW, Milstone AM. Safety of chlorhexidine gluconate used for skin antisepsis in the preterm infant. J Perinatol 2012;32(1):4–9.
  76. 76. Andersen C, Hart J, Vemgal P, Harrison C. Prospective evaluation of a multi-factorial prevention strategy on the impact of nosocomial infection in very-low-birthweight infants. J Hosp Infect 2005;61(2):162–167.
  77. 77. Taylor T, Massaro A, Williams L, et al. Effect of a dedicated percutaneously inserted central catheter team on neonatal catheter-related bloodstream infection. Adv Neonatal Care 2011;11(2):122–128.
  78. 78. Garland JS, Alex CP, Uhing MR, Peterside IE, Rentz A, Harris MC. Pilot trial to compare tolerance of chlorhexidine gluconate to povidone-iodine antisepsis for central venous catheter placement in neonates. J Perinatol 2009;29(12):808–813.
  79. 79. Curry S, Honeycutt M, Goins G, Gilliam C. Catheter-associated bloodstream infections in the NICU: getting to zero. Neonatal Netw 2009;28(3):151–155.
  80. 80. Garland JS, Alex CP, Mueller CD, et al. A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates. Pediatrics 2001;107(6):1431–1436.
  81. 81. Tsuchida T, Makimoto K, Toki M, Sakai K, Onaka E, Otani Y. The effectiveness of a nurse-initiated intervention to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infections in an urban acute hospital: an intervention study with before and after comparison. Int J Nurs Stud 2007;44(8):1324–1333.
  82. 82. Gozu A, Clay C, Younus F. Hospital-wide reduction in central line–associated bloodstream infections: a tale of two small community hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(6):619–622.
  83. 83. Occupational Health and Safety Administration, US Department of Labor. http://www.osha.gov. March 11, 2014.
  84. 84. Yilmaz G, Koksal I, Aydin K, Caylan R, Sucu N, Aksoy F. Risk factors of catheter-related bloodstream infections in parenteral nutrition catheterization. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2007;31(4):284–287.
  85. 85. Boyce JM, Pittet D; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Association for Professionals in Infection Control, Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51(RR-16):1–45.
  86. 86. Rosenthal VD, Guzman S, Safdar N. Reduction in nosocomial infection with improved hand hygiene in intensive care units of a tertiary care hospital in Argentina. Am J Infect Control 2005;33(7):392–397.
  87. 87. Capretti MG, Sandri F, Tridapalli E, Galletti S, Petracci E, Faldella G. Impact of a standardized hand hygiene program on the incidence of nosocomial infection in very low birth weight infants. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(6):430–435.
  88. 88. Goetz AM, Wagener MM, Miller JM, Muder RR. Risk of infection due to central venous catheters: effect of site of placement and catheter type. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19(11):842–845.
  89. 89. Parienti JJ, du Cheyron D, Timsit JF, et al. Meta-analysis of subclavian insertion and nontunneled central venous catheter–associated infection risk reduction in critically ill adults. Crit Care Med 2012;40(5):1627–1634.
  90. 90. Ge X, Cavallazzi R, Li C, Pan SM, Wang YW, Wang FL. Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(3):CD004084.
  91. 91. Parienti JJ, Thirion M, Megarbane B, et al. Femoral vs jugular venous catheterization and risk of nosocomial events in adults requiring acute renal replacement therapy: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008;299(20):2413–2422.
  92. 92. Timsit JF, Bouadma L, Mimoz O, et al. Jugular versus femoral short-term catheterization and risk of infection in intensive care unit patients: causal analysis of two randomized trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;188(10):1232–1239.
  93. 93. de Jonge RC, Polderman KH, Gemke RJ. Central venous catheter use in the pediatric patient: mechanical and infectious complications. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2005;6(3):329–339.
  94. 94. Marik PE, Flemmer M, Harrison W. The risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with femoral venous catheters as compared to subclavian and internal jugular venous catheters: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2012;40(8):2479–2485.
  95. 95. Lorente L, Jimenez A, Roca I, Martin MM, Mora ML. Influence of tracheostomy on the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection in the catheterization of jugular vein by posterior access. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2011;30(9):1049–1051.
  96. 96. Safdar N, Maki DG. Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters used in hospitalized patients. Chest 2005;128(2):489–495.
  97. 97. Chopra V, Anand S, Krein SL, Chenoweth C, Saint S. Bloodstream infection, venous thrombosis, and peripherally inserted central catheters: reappraising the evidence. Am J Med 2012;125(8):733–741.
  98. 98. Ajenjo MC, Morley JC, Russo AJ, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections in hospitalized adult patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(2):125–130.
  99. 99. Karakitsos D, Labropoulos N, De Groot E, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients. Crit Care 2006;10(6):R162.
  100. 100. Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, et al. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ 2003;327(7411):361.
  101. 101. Mermel LA, McCormick RD, Springman SR, Maki DG. The pathogenesis and epidemiology of catheter-related infection with pulmonary artery Swan-Ganz catheters: a prospective study utilizing molecular subtyping. Am J Med 1991;91(3B):197S–205S.
  102. 102. Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath BJ, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter–related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15(4 pt 1):231–238.
  103. 103. Hu KK, Lipsky BA, Veenstra DL, Saint S. Using maximal sterile barriers to prevent central venous catheter–related infection: a systematic evidence-based review. Am J Infect Control 2004;32(3):142–146.
  104. 104. Young EM, Commiskey ML, Wilson SJ. Translating evidence into practice to prevent central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections: a systems-based intervention. Am J Infect Control 2006;34(8):503–506.
  105. 105. Ishikawa Y, Kiyama T, Haga Y, et al. Maximal sterile barrier precautions do not reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections in general surgery units: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2010;251(4):620–623.
  106. 106. Burrell AR, McLaws ML, Murgo M, Calabria E, Pantle AC, Herkes R. Aseptic insertion of central venous lines to reduce bacteraemia. Med J Aust 2011;194(11):583–587.
  107. 107. Lee DH, Jung KY, Choi YH. Use of maximal sterile barrier precautions and/or antimicrobial-coated catheters to reduce the risk of central venous catheter–related bloodstream infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(10):947–950.
  108. 108. Maki DG, Ringer M, Alvarado CJ. Prospective randomised trial of povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine for prevention of infection associated with central venous and arterial catheters. Lancet 1991;338(8763):339–343.
  109. 109. Garland JS, Buck RK, Maloney P, et al. Comparison of 10% povidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter colonization in neonates: a prospective trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995;14(6):510–516.
  110. 110. Humar A, Ostromecki A, Direnfeld J, et al. Prospective randomized trial of 10% povidone-iodine versus 0.5% tincture of chlorhexidine as cutaneous antisepsis for prevention of central venous catheter infection. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31(4):1001–1007.
  111. 111. Chaiyakunapruk N, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, Saint S. Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2002;136(11):792–801.
  112. 112. Maiwald M, Chan ES. The forgotten role of alcohol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and perceived role of chlorhexidine in skin antisepsis. PLoS ONE 2012;7(9):e44277.
  113. 113. Robert J, Fridkin SK, Blumberg HM, et al. The influence of the composition of the nursing staff on primary bloodstream infection rates in a surgical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21(1):12–17.
  114. 114. Stone PW, Mooney-Kane C, Larson EL, et al. Nurse working conditions and patient safety outcomes. Med Care 2007;45(6):571–578.
  115. 115. Salzman MB, Isenberg HD, Rubin LG. Use of disinfectants to reduce microbial contamination of hubs of vascular catheters. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31(3):475–479.
  116. 116. Luebke MA, Arduino MJ, Duda DL, et al. Comparison of the microbial barrier properties of a needleless and a conventional needle-based intravenous access system. Am J Infect Control 1998;26(4):437–441.
  117. 117. Casey AL, Worthington T, Lambert PA, Quinn D, Faroqui MH, Elliott TS. A randomized, prospective clinical trial to assess the potential infection risk associated with the PosiFlow needleless connector. J Hosp Infect 2003;54(4):288–293.
  118. 118. Munoz-Price LS, Dezfulian C, Wyckoff M, et al. Effectiveness of stepwise interventions targeted to decrease central catheter–associated bloodstream infections. Crit Care Med 2012;40(5):1464–1469.
  119. 119. Soothill JS, Bravery K, Ho A, Macqueen S, Collins J, Lock P. A fall in bloodstream infections followed a change to 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropanol for catheter connection antisepsis: a pediatric single center before/after study on a hemopoietic stem cell transplant ward. Am J Infect Control 2009;37(8):626–630.
  120. 120. Hong H, Morrow DF, Sandora TJ, Priebe GP. Disinfection of needleless connectors with chlorhexidine-alcohol provides long-lasting residual disinfectant activity. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(8):e77–e79.
  121. 121. Rupp ME, Yu S, Huerta T, et al. Adequate disinfection of a split-septum needleless intravascular connector with a 5-second alcohol scrub. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(7):661–665.
  122. 122. Simmons S, Bryson C, Porter S. “Scrub the hub”: cleaning duration and reduction in bacterial load on central venous catheters. Crit Care Nurs Q 2011;34(1):31–35.
  123. 123. Lederle FA, Parenti CM, Berskow LC, Ellingson KJ. The idle intravenous catheter. Ann Intern Med 1992;116(9):737–738.
  124. 124. Parenti CM, Lederle FA, Impola CL, Peterson LR. Reduction of unnecessary intravenous catheter use: internal medicine house staff participate in a successful quality improvement project. Arch Intern Med 1994;154(16):1829–1832.
  125. 125. Rotz S, Sopirala MM. Assessment beyond central line bundle: audits for line necessity in infected central lines in a surgical intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(1):88–89.
  126. 126. Cload B, Day AG, Ilan R. Evaluation of unnecessary central venous catheters in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study. Can J Anaesth 2010;57(9):830–835.
  127. 127. Seguin P, Laviolle B, Isslame S, Coue A, Malledant Y. Effectiveness of simple daily sensitization of physicians to the duration of central venous and urinary tract catheterization. Intensive Care Med 2010;36(7):1202–1206.
  128. 128. Faruqi A, Medefindt J, Dutta G, Philip SA, Tompkins D, Carey J. Effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on central line utilization in an acute care hospital. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(6):e211–e215.
  129. 129. Maki DG, Stolz SS, Wheeler S, Mermel LA. A prospective, randomized trial of gauze and two polyurethane dressings for site care of pulmonary artery catheters: implications for catheter management. Crit Care Med 1994;22(11):1729–1737.
  130. 130. Rasero L, Degl’Innocenti M, Mocali M. Comparison of two different time interval protocols for central venous catheter dressing in bone marrow transplant patients: results of a randomized, multicenter study. Haematologica 2000;85:275–279.
  131. 131. Timsit JF, Bouadma L, Ruckly S, et al. Dressing disruption is a major risk factor for catheter-related infections. Crit Care Med 2012;40(6):1707–1714.
  132. 132. Gillies D, O’Riordan L, Wallen M, Morrison A, Rankin K, Nagy S. Optimal timing for intravenous administration set replacement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(4):CD003588.
  133. 133. Ullman AJ, Cooke ML, Gillies D, et al. Optimal timing for intravascular administration set replacement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(9):CD003588.
  134. 134. Levin A, Mason AJ, Jindal KK, Fong IW, Goldstein MB. Prevention of hemodialysis subclavian vein catheter infections by topical povidone-iodine. Kidney Int 1991;40(5):934–938.
  135. 135. Zakrzewska-Bode A, Muytjens HL, Liem KD, Hoogkamp-Korstanje JA. Mupirocin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci, after topical prophylaxis for the reduction of colonization of central venous catheters. J Hosp Infect 1995;31(3):189–193.
  136. 136. Riu S, Ruiz CG, Martinez-Vea A, Peralta C, Oliver JA. Spontaneous rupture of polyurethane peritoneal catheter: a possible deleterious effect of mupirocin ointment. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998;13(7):1870–1871.
  137. 137. Lok CE, Stanley KE, Hux JE, Richardson R, Tobe SW, Conly J. Hemodialysis infection prevention with polysporin ointment. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003;14(1):169–179.
  138. 138. Fong IW. Prevention of haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis catheter related infection by topical povidone-iodine. Postgrad Med J 1993;69(suppl 3):S15–S17.
  139. 139. Battistella M, Bhola C, Lok CE. Long-term follow-up of the Hemodialysis Infection Prevention with Polysporin Ointment (HIPPO) Study: a quality improvement report. Am J Kidney Dis 2011;57(3):432–441.
  140. 140. James MT, Conley J, Tonelli M, Manns BJ, MacRae J, Hemmelgarn BR. Meta-analysis: antibiotics for prophylaxis against hemodialysis catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2008;148(8):596–605.
  141. 141. Gastmeier P, Geffers C, Brandt C, et al. Effectiveness of a nationwide nosocomial infection surveillance system for reducing nosocomial infections. J Hosp Infect 2006;64(1):16–22.
  142. 142. Zingg W, Sax H, Inan C, et al. Hospital-wide surveillance of catheter-related bloodstream infection: from the expected to the unexpected. J Hosp Infect 2009;73(1):41–46.
  143. 143. National Healthcare Safety Network, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/acute-care-hospital/clabsi/index.html. March 11, 2014.
  144. 144. Edwards JR, Peterson KD, Andrus ML, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Report, data summary for 2006, issued June 2007. Am J Infect Control 2007;35(5):290–301.
  145. 145. Woeltje KF, McMullen KM, Butler AM, Goris AJ, Doherty JA. Electronic surveillance for healthcare-associated central line–associated bloodstream infections outside the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(11):1086–1090.
  146. 146. Maki DG, Stolz SM, Wheeler S, Mermel LA. Prevention of central venous catheter–related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1997;127(4):257–266.
  147. 147. Veenstra DL, Saint S, Saha S, Lumley T, Sullivan SD. Efficacy of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;281(3):261–267.
  148. 148. Darouiche RO, Raad II, Heard SO, et al; Catheter Study Group. A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters. N Engl J Med 1999;340(1):1–8.
  149. 149. Hanna HA, Raad II, Hackett B, et al. Antibiotic-impregnated catheters associated with significant decrease in nosocomial and multidrug-resistant bacteremias in critically ill patients. Chest 2003;124(3):1030–1038.
  150. 150. McConnell SA, Gubbins PO, Anaissie EJ. Do antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection? Clin Infect Dis 2003;37(1):65–72.
  151. 151. Rupp ME, Lisco SJ, Lipsett PA, et al. Effect of a second-generation venous catheter impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on central catheter–related infections: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2005;143(8):570–580.
  152. 152. Wang H, Huang T, Jing J, et al. Effectiveness of different central venous catheters for catheter-related infections: a network meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect 2010;76(1):1–11.
  153. 153. Cherry-Bukowiec JR, Denchev K, Dickinson S, et al. Prevention of catheter-related blood stream infection: back to basics? Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2011;12(1):27–32.
  154. 154. Guleri A, Kumar A, Morgan RJ, Hartley M, Roberts DH. Anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine-coated central venous catheters: a case series and review of the literature. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2012;13(3):171–174.
  155. 155. Levy I, Katz J, Solter E, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prevention of colonization of central venous catheters in infants and children: a randomized controlled study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005;24(8):676–679.
  156. 156. Ho KM, Litton E. Use of chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing to prevent vascular and epidural catheter colonization and infection: a meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;58(2):281–287.
  157. 157. Timsit JF, Schwebel C, Bouadma L, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponges and less frequent dressing changes for prevention of catheter-related infections in critically ill adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;301(12):1231–1241.
  158. 158. Ruschulte H, Franke M, Gastmeier P, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter related infections with chlorhexidine gluconate impregnated wound dressings: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Hematol 2009;88(3):267–272.
  159. 159. Camins BC, Richmond AM, Dyer KL, et al. A crossover intervention trial evaluating the efficacy of a chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge in reducing catheter-related bloodstream infections among patients undergoing hemodialysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(11):1118–1123.
  160. 160. Timsit JF, Mimoz O, Mourvillier B, et al. Randomized controlled trial of chlorhexidine dressing and highly adhesive dressing for preventing catheter-related infections in critically ill adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012;186(12):1272–1278.
  161. 161. Menyhay SZ, Maki DG. Preventing central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections: development of an antiseptic barrier cap for needleless connectors. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(10):S174e1–S174e5.
  162. 162. Oto J, Imanaka H, Konno M, Nakataki E, Nishimura M. A prospective clinical trial on prevention of catheter contamination using the hub protection cap for needleless injection device. Am J Infect Control 2011;39(4):309–313.
  163. 163. Sweet MA, Cumpston A, Briggs F, Craig M, Hamadani M. Impact of alcohol-impregnated port protectors and needleless neutral pressure connectors on central line–associated bloodstream infections and contamination of blood cultures in an inpatient oncology unit. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(10):931–934.
  164. 164. Wright MO, Tropp J, Schora DM, et al. Continuous passive disinfection of catheter hubs prevents contamination and bloodstream infection. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(1):33–38.
  165. 165. Loftus RW, Brindeiro BS, Kispert DP, et al. Reduction in intraoperative bacterial contamination of peripheral intravenous tubing through the use of a passive catheter care system. Anesth Analg 2012;115(6):1315–1323.
  166. 166. Bertini G, Elia S, Ceciarini F, Dani C. Reduction of catheter-related bloodstream infections in preterm infants by the use of catheters with the AgION antimicrobial system. Early Hum Dev 2013;89(1):21–25.
  167. 167. Chelliah A, Heydon KH, Zaoutis TE, et al. Observational trial of antibiotic-coated central venous catheters in critically ill pediatric patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2007;26(9):816–820.
  168. 168. Bhutta A, Gilliam C, Honeycutt M, et al. Reduction of bloodstream infections associated with catheters in paediatric intensive care unit: stepwise approach. BMJ 2007;334(7589):362–365.
  169. 169. Weber JM, Sheridan RL, Fagan S, Ryan CM, Pasternack MS, Tompkins RG. Incidence of catheter-associated bloodstream infection after introduction of minocycline and rifampin antimicrobial-coated catheters in a pediatric burn population. J Burn Care Res 2012;33(4):539–543.
  170. 170. Carratala J, Niubo J, Fernandez-Sevilla A, et al. Randomized, double-blind trial of an antibiotic-lock technique for prevention of gram-positive central venous catheter–related infection in neutropenic patients with cancer. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43(9):2200–2204.
  171. 171. Henrickson KJ, Axtell RA, Hoover SM, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter–related infections and thrombotic events in immunocompromised children by the use of vancomycin/ciprofloxacin/heparin flush solution: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial. J Clin Oncol 2000;18(6):1269–1278.
  172. 172. Safdar N, Maki DG. Use of vancomycin-containing lock or flush solutions for prevention of bloodstream infection associated with central venous access devices: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized trials. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43(4):474–484.
  173. 173. Labriola L, Crott R, Jadoul M. Preventing haemodialysis catheter-related bacteraemia with an antimicrobial lock solution: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23(5):1666–1672.
  174. 174. Snaterse M, Ruger W, Scholte Op Reimer WJ, Lucas C. Antibiotic-based catheter lock solutions for prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. J Hosp Infect 2010;75(1):1–11.
  175. 175. Oliveira C, Nasr A, Brindle M, Wales PW. Ethanol locks to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections in parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2012;129(2):318–329.
  176. 176. Yahav D, Rozen-Zvi B, Gafter-Gvili A, Leibovici L, Gafter U, Paul M. Antimicrobial lock solutions for the prevention of infections associated with intravascular catheters in patients undergoing hemodialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47(1):83–93.
  177. 177. Opilla MT, Kirby DF, Edmond MB. Use of ethanol lock therapy to reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections in home parenteral nutrition patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2007;31(4):302–305.
  178. 178. Slobbe L, Doorduijn JK, Lugtenburg PJ, et al. Prevention of catheter-related bacteremia with a daily ethanol lock in patients with tunnelled catheters: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2010;5(5):e10840.
  179. 179. Cober MP, Kovacevich DS, Teitelbaum DH. Ethanol-lock therapy for the prevention of central venous access device infections in pediatric patients with intestinal failure. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011;35(1):67–73.
  180. 180. Heng AE, Abdelkader MH, Diaconita M, et al. Impact of short term use of interdialytic 60% ethanol lock solution on tunneled silicone catheter dysfunction. Clin Nephrol 2011;75(6):534–541.
  181. 181. Hemmelgarn BR, Moist LM, Lok CE, et al. Prevention of dialysis catheter malfunction with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. N Engl J Med 2011;364(4):303–312.
  182. 182. McKee R, Dunsmuir R, Whitby M, Garden OJ. Does antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of catheter insertion reduce the incidence of catheter-related sepsis in intravenous nutrition? J Hosp Infect 1985;6(4):419–425.
  183. 183. Ranson MR, Oppenheim BA, Jackson A, Kamthan AG, Scarffe JH. Double-blind placebo controlled study of vancomycin prophylaxis for central venous catheter insertion in cancer patients. J Hosp Infect 1990;15(1):95–102.
  184. 184. Sandoe JA, Kumar B, Stoddart B, et al. Effect of extended perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis on intravascular catheter colonization and infection in cardiothoracic surgery patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;52(5):877–879.
  185. 185. van de Wetering MD, van Woensel JB, Kremer LC, Caron HN. Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing early gram-positive central venous catheter infections in oncology patients: a Cochrane systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2005;31(3):186–196.
  186. 186. Karanlik H, Kurul S, Saip P, et al. The role of antibiotic prophylaxis in totally implantable venous access device placement: results of a single-center prospective randomized trial. Am J Surg 2011;202(1):10–15.
  187. 187. Eyer S, Brummitt C, Crossley K, Siegel R, Cerra F. Catheter-related sepsis: prospective, randomized study of three methods of long-term catheter maintenance. Crit Care Med 1990;18(10):1073–1079.
  188. 188. Cobb DK, High KP, Sawyer RG, et al. A controlled trial of scheduled replacement of central venous and pulmonary-artery catheters. N Engl J Med 1992;327(15):1062–1068.
  189. 189. Cook D, Randolph A, Kernerman P, et al. Central venous catheter replacement strategies: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 1997;25(8):1417–1424.
  190. 190. Maragakis LL, Bradley KL, Song X, et al. Increased catheter-related bloodstream infection rates after the introduction of a new mechanical valve intravenous access port. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(1):67–70.
  191. 191. Field K, McFarlane C, Cheng AC, et al. Incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection among patients with a needleless, mechanical valve–based intravenous connector in an Australian hematology-oncology unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(5):610–613.
  192. 192. Salgado CD, Chinnes L, Paczesny TH, Cantey JR. Increased rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection associated with use of a needleless mechanical valve device at a long-term acute care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(6):684–688.
  193. 193. Rupp ME, Sholtz LA, Jourdan DR, et al. Outbreak of bloodstream infection temporally associated with the use of an intravascular needleless valve. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44(11):1408–1414.
  194. 194. Jarvis WR, Murphy C, Hall KK, et al. Health care–associated bloodstream infections associated with negative- or positive-pressure or displacement mechanical valve needleless connectors. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49(12):1821–1827.
  195. 195. Miller JM, Goetz AM, Squier C, Muder RR. Reduction in nosocomial intravenous device-related bacteremias after institution of an intravenous therapy team. J Intraven Nurs 1996;19(2):103–106.
  196. 196. Soifer NE, Borzak S, Edlin BR, Weinstein RA. Prevention of peripheral venous catheter complications with an intravenous therapy team: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 1998;158(5):473–477.
  197. 197. Koh DB, Gowardman JR, Rickard CM, Robertson IK, Brown A. Prospective study of peripheral arterial catheter infection and comparison with concurrently sited central venous catheters. Crit Care Med 2008;36(2):397–402.
  198. 198. Lucet JC, Bouadma L, Zahar JR, et al. Infectious risk associated with arterial catheters compared with central venous catheters. Crit Care Med 2010;38(4):1030–1035.
  199. 199. Tokars JI, Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Horan TC. Measurement of the impact of risk adjustment for central line–days on interpretation of central line–associated bloodstream infection rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(9):1025–1029.
  200. 200. Klevens RM, Tokars JI, Edwards J, Horan T. Sampling for collection of central line–day denominators in surveillance of healthcare-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(4):338–342.
  201. 201. Thompson ND, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, et al. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling to estimate central line–days: simplification of the National Healthcare Safety Network surveillance methods. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(3):221–228.
  202. 202. Casey AL, Karpanen TJ, Nightingale P, Cook M, Elliott TS. Microbiological comparison of a silver-coated and a non-coated needleless intravascular connector in clinical use. J Hosp Infect 2012;80(4):299–303.
  203. 203. Webster J, Gillies D, O’Riordan E, Sherriff KL, Rickard CM. Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(11):CD003827.
  204. 204. Batra R, Cooper BS, Whiteley C, Patel AK, Wyncoll D, Edgeworth JD. Efficacy and limitation of a chlorhexidine-based decolonization strategy in preventing transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis 2010;50(2):210–217.
  205. 205. Bizzarro MJ, Sabo B, Noonan M, Bonfiglio MP, Northrup V, Diefenbach K. A quality improvement initiative to reduce central line–associated bloodstream infections in a neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(3):241–248.
  206. 206. Sawyer M, Weeks K, Goeschel CA, et al. Using evidence, rigorous measurement, and collaboration to eliminate central catheter–associated bloodstream infections. Crit Care Med 2010;38(suppl 8):S292–S298.
  207. 207. Widmer AF, Nettleman M, Flint K, Wenzel RP. The clinical impact of culturing central venous catheters: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med 1992;152(6):1299–1302.
  208. 208. Raad II, Baba M, Bodey GP. Diagnosis of catheter-related infections: the role of surveillance and targeted quantitative skin cultures. Clin Infect Dis 1995;20(3):593–597.
  209. 209. Pittet D, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infections: secular trends in rates, mortality, and contribution to total hospital deaths. Arch Intern Med 1995;155(11):1177–1184.
  210. 210. Wong ES, Rupp ME, Mermel L, et al. Public disclosure of healthcare-associated infections: the role of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26(2):210–212.
  211. 211. Aswani MS, Reagan J, Jin L, Pronovost PJ, Goeschel C. Variation in public reporting of central line–associated bloodstream infections by state. Am J Med Qual 2011;26(5):387–395.
  212. 212. Talbot TR, Bratzler DW, Carrico RM, et al. Public reporting of health care–associated surveillance data: recommendations from the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Ann Intern Med 2013;159(9):631–635.
  213. 213. Healthcare-Associated Infection Working Group of the Joint Public Policy Committee. Essentials of Public Reporting of Healthcare-Associated Infections: A Tool Kit. 2007. http://www.shea-online.org/Assets/files/Essentials_of_Public_Reporting_Tool_Kit.pdf. March 11, 2014.
  214. 214. National Quality Forum (NQF). National Voluntary Consensus Standards for the Reporting of Healthcare-Associated Infection Data. Washington, DC: NQF, 2008. http://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2008/03/National_Voluntary_Consensus_Standards_for_the_Reporting_of_Healthcare-Associated_Infection_Data.aspx. March 11, 2014.
  215. 215. Weaver SJ, Lubomksi LH, Wilson RF, Pfoh ER, Martinez KA, Dy SM. Promoting a culture of safety as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158(5 pt 2):369–374.
  216. 216. Hatler CW, Mast D, Corderella J, et al. Using evidence and process improvement strategies to enhance healthcare outcomes for the critically ill: a pilot project. Am J Crit Care 2006;15(6):549–555.
  217. 218. Tools for Reducing Line Associated Blood Stream Infections. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/education/curriculum-tools/clabsitools/index.html.
  218. 219. Silow-Carrol S, Edwards JN. Eliminating Central Line Infections and Spreading Success at High-Performing Hospitals. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 2011.
  219. 220. Huang GC, Newman LR, Schwartzstein RM, et al. Procedural competence in internal medicine residents: validity of a central venous catheter insertion assessment instrument. Acad Med 2009;84(8):1127–1134.
  220. 221. Safdar N, Abad C. Educational interventions for prevention of healthcare-associated infection: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2008;36(3):933–940.
  221. 222. Smith JS, Kirksey KM, Becker H, Brown A. Autonomy and self-efficacy as influencing factors in nurses’ behavioral intention to disinfect needleless intravenous systems. J Infus Nurs 2011;34(3):193–200.
  222. 223. Faruqi A, Medefindt J, Dutta G, Philip SA, Tompkins D, Carey J. Effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on central line utilization in an acute care hospital. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(6):e211–e215.
  223. 224. Warren D, Zack J, Mayfield J, et al. The effect of an education program on the incidence of central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infection in a medical ICU. Chest 2004;126(5):1612–1618.
  224. 225. Warren DK, Yokoe DS, Climo MW, et al. Preventing catheter-associated bloodstream infections: a survey of policies for insertion and care of central venous catheters from hospitals in the Prevention Epicenter Program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(1):8–13.
  225. 226. Chittick P, Sherertz RJ. Recognition and prevention of nosocomial vascular device and related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2010;38(suppl 8):S363–S372.
  226. 227. Moureau N, Lamperti M, Kelly LJ, et al. Evidence-based consensus on the insertion of central venous access devices: definition of minimal requirements for training. Br J Anaesth 2013;110(3):347–356.
  227. 228. Warren DK, Cosgrove SE, Diekema DJ, et al. A multicenter intervention to prevent catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(7):662–669.
  228. 229. Sannoh S, Clones B, Munoz J, Montecalvo M, Parvez B. A multimodal approach to central venous catheter hub care can decrease catheter-related bloodstream infection. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(6):424–429.
  229. 230. Banks CM, Gilmartin H, Fink RM. Education methods for maintaining nursing competency in low-volume, high-risk procedures in the rural setting: bridging the theory to practice gap. J Nurses Staff Dev 2010;26(3):E1–E7.
  230. 231. Comer A, Harris AD, Shardell MP, et al. Web-based training improves knowledge about central line bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(12):1219–1222.
  231. 232. Guembe M, Pérez-Parra A, Gómez E, et al. Impact on knowledge and practice of an intervention to control catheter infection in the ICU. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;31(10):2799–2808.
  232. 233. Zack J. Zeroing in on zero tolerance for central line–associated bacteremia. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(10):S176.e1.
  233. 234. Aboelela SW, Stone PW, Larson EL. Effectiveness of bundled behavioural interventions to control healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review of the literature. J Hosp Infect 2007;66(2):101–108.
  234. 235. Sherertz R, Ely E, Westbrook D, et al. Education of physicians-in-training can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med 2000;132(8):641–648.
  235. 236. Walz JM, Memtsoudis SG, Heard SO. Analytic reviews: prevention of central venous catheter bloodstream infections. J Intensive Care Med 2010;25(3):131–138.
  236. 237. Rodriguez-Paz JM, Kennedy M, Salas E, et al. Beyond “see one, do one, teach one”: toward a different training paradigm. Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18(1):63–68.
  237. 238. Ahya SN, Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Tuazon J, McGaghie WC, Wayne DB. Clinical performance and skill retention after simulation-based education for nephrology fellows. Semin Dial 2012;25(4):470–473.
  238. 239. Ault MJ, Rosen BT, Ault B. The use of tissue models for vascular access training: phase I of the procedural patient safety initiative. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21(5):514–517.
  239. 240. Evans LV, Dodge KL. Simulation and patient safety: evaluative checklists for central venous catheter insertion. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19(suppl 3):i42–i46.
  240. 241. Ahlin C, Klang-Söderkvist B, Brundin S, Hellström B, Pettersson K, Johansson E. Implementation of a written protocol for management of central venous access devices: a theoretical and practical education, including bedside examinations. J Infus Nurs 2006;29(5):253–259.
  241. 242. Segreti J, Garcia-Houchins S, Gorski L, et al. Consensus conference on prevention of central line–associated bloodstream infections: 2009. J Infus Nurs 2011;34(2):126–133.
  242. 243. Labeau S, Vereecke A, Vandijck DM, Claes B, Blot SI. Critical care nurses’ knowledge of evidence-based guidelines for preventing infections associated with central venous catheters: an evaluation questionnaire. Am J Crit Care 2008;17(1):65–71.
  243. 244. Labeau SO, Vandijck DM, Rello J, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for preventing central venous catheter–related infection: results of a knowledge test among 3405 European intensive care nurses. Crit Care Med 2009;37(1):320–323.
  244. 245. Marra AR, Cal RG, Durao MS, et al. Impact of a program to prevent central line–associated bloodstream infection in the zero tolerance era. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(6):434–439.
  245. 246. Wheeler DS, Giaccone MJ, Hutchinson N, et al. A hospital-wide quality-improvement collaborative to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Pediatrics 2011;128(4):e995–e1004.
  246. 247. Harting BP, Talbot TR, Dellit TH, et al. University HealthSystem Consortium quality performance benchmarking study of the insertion and care of central venous catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(5):440–442.
  247. 248. Jeffries HE, Mason W, Brewer M, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections in pediatric intensive care units: a performance improvement collaborative. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30(7):645–651.
  248. 249. Stevens TP, Schulman J. Evidence-based approach to preventing central line–associated bloodstream infection in the NICU. Acta Paediatr Suppl 2012;101(464):11–16.
  249. 250. Powers RJ, Wirtschafter DW. Decreasing central line associated bloodstream infection in neonatal intensive care. Clin Perinatol 2010;37(1):247–272.
  250. 251. Rupp ME, Cassling K, Faber H, et al. Hospital-wide assessment of compliance with central venous catheter dressing recommendations. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(1):89–91.
  251. 252. O’Grady N, Alexander M, Burns L, Dellinger E. Guideline for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections, 2011. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/BSI/BSI-guidelines-2011.html. Accessed April 1, 2011.
  252. 253. Son CH, Daniels TL, Eagan J, et al. Central line–associated bloodstream infection surveillance outside the intensive care unit: a multicenter survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(9):869–874.
  253. 254. Woeltje KF, McMullen KM, Butler AM, Goris AJ, Doherty JA. Electronic surveillance for healthcare-associated central line–associated bloodstream infections outside the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(11):1086–1090.
  254. 255. Berhe M, Edmond MB, Bearman G. Measurement and feedback of infection control process measures in the intensive care unit: impact on compliance. Am J Infect Control 2006;34(8):537–539.
  255. 256. Assanasen S, Edmond M, Bearman G. Impact of 2 different levels of performance feedback on compliance with infection control process measures in 2 intensive care units. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(6):407–413.
  256. 257. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924–926.
  257. 258. GRADE. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care website. http://canadiantaskforce.ca/methods/grade/. Accessed December 31, 2013.

Acknowledgments

Disclaimer. A.K.—The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Potential conflicts of interest. J.M. reports receiving a speaker honorarium from Gilead Sciences Switzerland. L.A.M. reports serving as an advisor/consultant for ICU Medical, Fresenius Medical Care, Bard Access Systems, Marvao Medical Devices, CareFusion, 3M Healthcare, Catheter Connections, Semprus Biosciences, and Sharklet Technologies. L.H. reports serving as an advisor/consultant for B Braun Medical, BD Medical, Excelsior Medical, Ivera Medical, Access Scientific, 3M, and Baxter Healthcare. A.M.P. reports receiving speaking fees from Bard and serving as a speaker and author for Covidien. M.E.R reports serving as an advisor/consultant for 3M, Ariste, Semprus, and Sharklet Technologies and receiving honoraria from Baxter and CareFusion. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1. Marschall J, Mermel LA, Classen D, et al. Strategies to prevent central line–associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(suppl 1):S22–S30.
  2. 2. Yokoe DS, Anderson DJ, Berenholtz SM, et al. Introduction to “A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Updates.” Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35(5):455–459.
  3. 3. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81(9):1159–1171.
  4. 4. Esteve F, Pujol M, Limon E, et al. Bloodstream infection related to catheter connections: a prospective trial of two connection systems. J Hosp Infect 2007;67(1):30–34.
  5. 5. Climo M, Diekema D, Warren DK, et al. Prevalence of the use of central venous access devices within and outside of the intensive care unit: results of a survey among hospitals in the Prevention Epicenter Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24(12):942–945.
  6. 6. Vonberg RP, Behnke M, Geffers C, et al. Device-associated infection rates for non–intensive care unit patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(4):357–361.
  7. 7. Marschall J, Leone C, Jones M, Nihill D, Fraser VJ, Warren DK. Catheter-associated bloodstream infections in general medical patients outside the intensive care unit: a surveillance study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(8):905–909.
  8. 8. Vital signs: central line–associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60(8):243–248.
  9. 9. Kallen AJ, Patel PR, O’Grady NP. Preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections outside the intensive care unit: expanding prevention to new settings. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51(3):335–341.
  10. 10. Zingg W, Sandoz L, Inan C, et al. Hospital-wide survey of the use of central venous catheters. J Hosp Infect 2011;77(4):304–308.
  11. 11. Xue H, Ix JH, Wang W, et al. Hemodialysis access usage patterns in the incident dialysis year and associated catheter-related complications. Am J Kidney Dis 2013;61(1):123–130.
  12. 12. Loftus RW, Brown JR, Koff MD, et al. Multiple reservoirs contribute to intraoperative bacterial transmission. Anesth Analg 2012;114(6):1236–1248.
  13. 13. Pittet D, Tarara D, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients: excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1994;271(20):1598–1601.
  14. 14. Digiovine B, Chenoweth C, Watts C, Higgins M. The attributable mortality and costs of primary nosocomial bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160(3):976–181.
  15. 15. Renaud B, Brun-Buisson C. Outcomes of primary and catheter-related bacteremia: a cohort and case-control study in critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163(7):1584–1590.
  16. 16. Dimick JB, Pelz RK, Consunji R, Swoboda SM, Hendrix CW, Lipsett PA. Increased resource use associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch Surg 2001;136(2):229–234.
  17. 17. Warren DK, Quadir WW, Hollenbeak CS, Elward AM, Cox MJ, Fraser VJ. Attributable cost of catheter-associated bloodstream infections among intensive care patients in a nonteaching hospital. Crit Care Med 2006;34(8):2084–2089.
  18. 18. Mermel LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000;132(5):391–402.
  19. 19. Elward AM, Hollenbeak CS, Warren DK, Fraser VJ. Attributable cost of nosocomial primary bloodstream infection in pediatric intensive care unit patients. Pediatrics 2005;115(4):868–872.
  20. 20. Mermel LA. Infections caused by intravascular devices. In: Pfeiffer JA, ed. APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 2000:30–38.
  21. 21. Almuneef MA, Memish ZA, Balkhy HH, Hijazi O, Cunningham G, Francis C. Rate, risk factors and outcomes of catheter-related bloodstream infection in a paediatric intensive care unit in Saudi Arabia. J Hosp Infect 2006;62(2):207–213.
  22. 22. Alonso-Echanove J, Edwards JR, Richards MJ, et al. Effect of nurse staffing and antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters on the risk for bloodstream infections in intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24(12):916–925.
  23. 23. Lorente L, Henry C, Martin MM, Jimenez A, Mora ML. Central venous catheter–related infection in a prospective and observational study of 2,595 catheters. Crit Care 2005;9(6):R631–R635.
  24. 24. Rey C, Alvarez F, De-La-Rua V, et al. Intervention to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections in a pediatric intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2011;37(4):678–685.
  25. 25. Lorente L, Jimenez A, Naranjo C, et al. Higher incidence of catheter-related bacteremia in jugular site with tracheostomy than in femoral site. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(3):311–313.
  26. 26. Fridkin SK, Pear SM, Williamson TH, Galgiani JN, Jarvis WR. The role of understaffing in central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17(3):150–158.
  27. 27. Cimiotti JP, Haas J, Saiman L, Larson EL. Impact of staffing on bloodstream infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160(8):832–836.
  28. 28. Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;286(6):700–707.
  29. 29. Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J, et al; Texas Medical Center Catheter Study Group. Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections: a randomized, double-blind trial. Ann Intern Med 1997;127(4):267–274.
  30. 30. Hanna H, Benjamin R, Chatzinikolaou I, et al. Long-term silicone central venous catheters impregnated with minocycline and rifampin decrease rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection in cancer patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(15):3163–3171.
  31. 31. National Healthcare Safety Network, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Manual: Patient Safety Component Protocol. July 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/4PSC_CLABScurrent.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2013.
  32. 32. Niedner MF. The harder you look, the more you find: catheter-associated bloodstream infection surveillance variability. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(8):585–595.
  33. 33. Lin MY, Hota B, Khan YM, et al. Quality of traditional surveillance for public reporting of nosocomial bloodstream infection rates. JAMA 2010;304(18):2035–2041.
  34. 34. Tomlinson D, Mermel LA, Ethier MC, Matlow A, Gillmeister B, Sung L. Defining bloodstream infections related to central venous catheters in patients with cancer: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis 2011;53(7):697–710.
  35. 35. Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49(1):1–45.
  36. 36. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51(RR-10):1–29.
  37. 37. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(9):e162–e193.
  38. 38. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. http://www.ihi.org. March 11, 2014.
  39. 39. Saint S. Prevention of intravascular catheter-associated infections. In: Making Health Care Safer. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2001. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ptsafety/, chapter 16. March 11, 2014.
  40. 40. Huang EY, Chen C, Abdullah F, et al. Strategies for the prevention of central venous catheter infections: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee systematic review. J Pediatr Surg 2011;46(10):2000–2011.
  41. 41. The Joint Commission. Preventing Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections: A Global Challenge, A Global Perspective. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: The Joint Commission, 2012. http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/CLABSI_Monograph.pdf. March 11, 2014.
  42. 42. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC). Guide to the Elimination of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections. Chicago: APIC, 2009.
  43. 43. Infusion Nurses Society. Infusion nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 2011;S34.
  44. 44. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006;355(26):2725–2732.
  45. 45. Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA, et al. Eliminating catheter-related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2004;32(10):2014–2020.
  46. 46. Reduction in central line–associated bloodstream infections among patients in intensive care units—Pennsylvania, April 2001–March 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54(40):1013–1016.
  47. 47. Kim JS, Holtom P, Vigen C. Reduction of catheter-related bloodstream infections through the use of a central venous line bundle: epidemiologic and economic consequences. Am J Infect Control 2011;39(8):640–646.
  48. 48. Halton KA, Cook D, Paterson DL, Safdar N, Graves N. Cost-effectiveness of a central venous catheter care bundle. PLoS ONE 2010;5(9):e12815.
  49. 49. Helder O, van den Hoogen A, de Boer C, van Goudoever J, Verboon-Maciolek M, Kornelisse R. Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bloodstream infections in infants admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2013;50(6):819–831.
  50. 50. Pronovost PJ, Goeschel CA, Colantuoni E, et al. Sustaining reductions in catheter related bloodstream infections in Michigan intensive care units: observational study. BMJ 2010;340:c309.
  51. 51. Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Goeschel CA, et al. Creating high reliability in health care organizations. Health Serv Res 2006;41(4 pt 2):1599–1617.
  52. 52. Furuya EY, Dick A, Perencevich EN, Pogorzelska M, Goldmann D, Stone PW. Central line bundle implementation in US intensive care units and impact on bloodstream infections. PLoS ONE 2011;6(1):e15452.
  53. 53. Guerin K, Wagner J, Rains K, Bessesen M. Reduction in central line–associated bloodstream infections by implementation of a postinsertion care bundle. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(6):430–433.
  54. 54. Miller MR, Griswold M, Harris JM 2nd, et al. Decreasing PICU catheter-associated bloodstream infections: NACHRI’s quality transformation efforts. Pediatrics 2010;125(2):206–213.
  55. 55. Miller MR, Niedner MF, Huskins WC, et al. Reducing PICU central line–associated bloodstream infections: 3-year results. Pediatrics 2011;128(5):e1077–e1083.
  56. 56. Sherertz RJ, Ely EW, Westbrook DM, et al. Education of physicians-in-training can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med 2000;132(8):641–648.
  57. 57. Eggimann P, Harbarth S, Constantin MN, Touveneau S, Chevrolet JC, Pittet D. Impact of a prevention strategy targeted at vascular-access care on incidence of infections acquired in intensive care. Lancet 2000;355(9218):1864–1868.
  58. 58. Coopersmith CM, Rebmann TL, Zack JE, et al. Effect of an education program on decreasing catheter-related bloodstream infections in the surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2002;30(1):59–64.
  59. 59. Warren DK, Zack JE, Cox MJ, Cohen MM, Fraser VJ. An educational intervention to prevent catheter-associated bloodstream infections in a nonteaching, community medical center. Crit Care Med 2003;31(7):1959–1963.
  60. 60. Warren DK, Zack JE, Mayfield JL, et al. The effect of an education program on the incidence of central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infection in a medical ICU. Chest 2004;126(5):1612–1618.
  61. 61. Lobo RD, Levin AS, Oliveira MS, et al. Evaluation of interventions to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infection: continuous tailored education versus one basic lecture. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(6):440–448.
  62. 62. Cherry MG, Brown JM, Neal T, Ben Shaw N. What features of educational interventions lead to competence in aseptic insertion and maintenance of CV catheters in acute care? BEME Guide 15. Med Teach 2010;32(3):198–218.
  63. 63. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Assessing Hospital Staff Competence. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission Resources, 2007.
  64. 64. Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Feinglass J, McGaghie WC, Wayne DB. Use of simulation-based education to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(15):1420–1423.
  65. 65. Khouli H, Jahnes K, Shapiro J, et al. Performance of medical residents in sterile techniques during central vein catheterization: randomized trial of efficacy of simulation-based training. Chest 2011;139(1):80–87.
  66. 66. Ma IW, Brindle ME, Ronksley PE, Lorenzetti DL, Sauve RS, Ghali WA. Use of simulation-based education to improve outcomes of central venous catheterization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2011;86(9):1137–1147.
  67. 67. Bleasdale SC, Trick WE, Gonzalez IM, Lyles RD, Hayden MK, Weinstein RA. Effectiveness of chlorhexidine bathing to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infections in medical intensive care unit patients. Arch Intern Med 2007;167(19):2073–2079.
  68. 68. O’Horo JC, Silva GL, Munoz-Price LS, Safdar N. The efficacy of daily bathing with chlorhexidine for reducing healthcare-associated bloodstream infections: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(3):257–267.
  69. 69. Montecalvo MA, McKenna D, Yarrish R, et al. Chlorhexidine bathing to reduce central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infection: impact and sustainability. Am J Med 2012;125(5):505–511.
  70. 70. Milstone AM, Elward A, Song X, et al. Daily chlorhexidine bathing to reduce bacteraemia in critically ill children: a multicentre, cluster-randomised, crossover trial. Lancet 2013;381(9872):1099–1106.
  71. 71. Munoz-Price LS, Hota B, Stemer A, Weinstein RA. Prevention of bloodstream infections by use of daily chlorhexidine baths for patients at a long-term acute care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30(11):1031–1035.
  72. 72. Medina A, Serratt T, Pelter M, Brancamp T. Decreasing central line–associated bloodstream infections in the non-ICU population. J Nurs Care Qual 2014;29(2):133–140.
  73. 73. Tamma PD, Aucott SW, Milstone AM. Chlorhexidine use in the neonatal intensive care unit: results from a national survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(8):846–849.
  74. 74. Bryant KA, Zerr DM, Huskins WC, Milstone AM. The past, present, and future of healthcare-associated infection prevention in pediatrics: catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(suppl 1):S27–S31.
  75. 75. Chapman AK, Aucott SW, Milstone AM. Safety of chlorhexidine gluconate used for skin antisepsis in the preterm infant. J Perinatol 2012;32(1):4–9.
  76. 76. Andersen C, Hart J, Vemgal P, Harrison C. Prospective evaluation of a multi-factorial prevention strategy on the impact of nosocomial infection in very-low-birthweight infants. J Hosp Infect 2005;61(2):162–167.
  77. 77. Taylor T, Massaro A, Williams L, et al. Effect of a dedicated percutaneously inserted central catheter team on neonatal catheter-related bloodstream infection. Adv Neonatal Care 2011;11(2):122–128.
  78. 78. Garland JS, Alex CP, Uhing MR, Peterside IE, Rentz A, Harris MC. Pilot trial to compare tolerance of chlorhexidine gluconate to povidone-iodine antisepsis for central venous catheter placement in neonates. J Perinatol 2009;29(12):808–813.
  79. 79. Curry S, Honeycutt M, Goins G, Gilliam C. Catheter-associated bloodstream infections in the NICU: getting to zero. Neonatal Netw 2009;28(3):151–155.
  80. 80. Garland JS, Alex CP, Mueller CD, et al. A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates. Pediatrics 2001;107(6):1431–1436.
  81. 81. Tsuchida T, Makimoto K, Toki M, Sakai K, Onaka E, Otani Y. The effectiveness of a nurse-initiated intervention to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infections in an urban acute hospital: an intervention study with before and after comparison. Int J Nurs Stud 2007;44(8):1324–1333.
  82. 82. Gozu A, Clay C, Younus F. Hospital-wide reduction in central line–associated bloodstream infections: a tale of two small community hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(6):619–622.
  83. 83. Occupational Health and Safety Administration, US Department of Labor. http://www.osha.gov. March 11, 2014.
  84. 84. Yilmaz G, Koksal I, Aydin K, Caylan R, Sucu N, Aksoy F. Risk factors of catheter-related bloodstream infections in parenteral nutrition catheterization. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2007;31(4):284–287.
  85. 85. Boyce JM, Pittet D; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Association for Professionals in Infection Control, Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51(RR-16):1–45.
  86. 86. Rosenthal VD, Guzman S, Safdar N. Reduction in nosocomial infection with improved hand hygiene in intensive care units of a tertiary care hospital in Argentina. Am J Infect Control 2005;33(7):392–397.
  87. 87. Capretti MG, Sandri F, Tridapalli E, Galletti S, Petracci E, Faldella G. Impact of a standardized hand hygiene program on the incidence of nosocomial infection in very low birth weight infants. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(6):430–435.
  88. 88. Goetz AM, Wagener MM, Miller JM, Muder RR. Risk of infection due to central venous catheters: effect of site of placement and catheter type. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19(11):842–845.
  89. 89. Parienti JJ, du Cheyron D, Timsit JF, et al. Meta-analysis of subclavian insertion and nontunneled central venous catheter–associated infection risk reduction in critically ill adults. Crit Care Med 2012;40(5):1627–1634.
  90. 90. Ge X, Cavallazzi R, Li C, Pan SM, Wang YW, Wang FL. Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(3):CD004084.
  91. 91. Parienti JJ, Thirion M, Megarbane B, et al. Femoral vs jugular venous catheterization and risk of nosocomial events in adults requiring acute renal replacement therapy: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008;299(20):2413–2422.
  92. 92. Timsit JF, Bouadma L, Mimoz O, et al. Jugular versus femoral short-term catheterization and risk of infection in intensive care unit patients: causal analysis of two randomized trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;188(10):1232–1239.
  93. 93. de Jonge RC, Polderman KH, Gemke RJ. Central venous catheter use in the pediatric patient: mechanical and infectious complications. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2005;6(3):329–339.
  94. 94. Marik PE, Flemmer M, Harrison W. The risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with femoral venous catheters as compared to subclavian and internal jugular venous catheters: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2012;40(8):2479–2485.
  95. 95. Lorente L, Jimenez A, Roca I, Martin MM, Mora ML. Influence of tracheostomy on the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection in the catheterization of jugular vein by posterior access. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2011;30(9):1049–1051.
  96. 96. Safdar N, Maki DG. Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters used in hospitalized patients. Chest 2005;128(2):489–495.
  97. 97. Chopra V, Anand S, Krein SL, Chenoweth C, Saint S. Bloodstream infection, venous thrombosis, and peripherally inserted central catheters: reappraising the evidence. Am J Med 2012;125(8):733–741.
  98. 98. Ajenjo MC, Morley JC, Russo AJ, et al. Peripherally inserted central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections in hospitalized adult patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(2):125–130.
  99. 99. Karakitsos D, Labropoulos N, De Groot E, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients. Crit Care 2006;10(6):R162.
  100. 100. Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, et al. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ 2003;327(7411):361.
  101. 101. Mermel LA, McCormick RD, Springman SR, Maki DG. The pathogenesis and epidemiology of catheter-related infection with pulmonary artery Swan-Ganz catheters: a prospective study utilizing molecular subtyping. Am J Med 1991;91(3B):197S–205S.
  102. 102. Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath BJ, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter–related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15(4 pt 1):231–238.
  103. 103. Hu KK, Lipsky BA, Veenstra DL, Saint S. Using maximal sterile barriers to prevent central venous catheter–related infection: a systematic evidence-based review. Am J Infect Control 2004;32(3):142–146.
  104. 104. Young EM, Commiskey ML, Wilson SJ. Translating evidence into practice to prevent central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections: a systems-based intervention. Am J Infect Control 2006;34(8):503–506.
  105. 105. Ishikawa Y, Kiyama T, Haga Y, et al. Maximal sterile barrier precautions do not reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections in general surgery units: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2010;251(4):620–623.
  106. 106. Burrell AR, McLaws ML, Murgo M, Calabria E, Pantle AC, Herkes R. Aseptic insertion of central venous lines to reduce bacteraemia. Med J Aust 2011;194(11):583–587.
  107. 107. Lee DH, Jung KY, Choi YH. Use of maximal sterile barrier precautions and/or antimicrobial-coated catheters to reduce the risk of central venous catheter–related bloodstream infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(10):947–950.
  108. 108. Maki DG, Ringer M, Alvarado CJ. Prospective randomised trial of povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine for prevention of infection associated with central venous and arterial catheters. Lancet 1991;338(8763):339–343.
  109. 109. Garland JS, Buck RK, Maloney P, et al. Comparison of 10% povidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter colonization in neonates: a prospective trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995;14(6):510–516.
  110. 110. Humar A, Ostromecki A, Direnfeld J, et al. Prospective randomized trial of 10% povidone-iodine versus 0.5% tincture of chlorhexidine as cutaneous antisepsis for prevention of central venous catheter infection. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31(4):1001–1007.
  111. 111. Chaiyakunapruk N, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, Saint S. Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2002;136(11):792–801.
  112. 112. Maiwald M, Chan ES. The forgotten role of alcohol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and perceived role of chlorhexidine in skin antisepsis. PLoS ONE 2012;7(9):e44277.
  113. 113. Robert J, Fridkin SK, Blumberg HM, et al. The influence of the composition of the nursing staff on primary bloodstream infection rates in a surgical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21(1):12–17.
  114. 114. Stone PW, Mooney-Kane C, Larson EL, et al. Nurse working conditions and patient safety outcomes. Med Care 2007;45(6):571–578.
  115. 115. Salzman MB, Isenberg HD, Rubin LG. Use of disinfectants to reduce microbial contamination of hubs of vascular catheters. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31(3):475–479.
  116. 116. Luebke MA, Arduino MJ, Duda DL, et al. Comparison of the microbial barrier properties of a needleless and a conventional needle-based intravenous access system. Am J Infect Control 1998;26(4):437–441.
  117. 117. Casey AL, Worthington T, Lambert PA, Quinn D, Faroqui MH, Elliott TS. A randomized, prospective clinical trial to assess the potential infection risk associated with the PosiFlow needleless connector. J Hosp Infect 2003;54(4):288–293.
  118. 118. Munoz-Price LS, Dezfulian C, Wyckoff M, et al. Effectiveness of stepwise interventions targeted to decrease central catheter–associated bloodstream infections. Crit Care Med 2012;40(5):1464–1469.
  119. 119. Soothill JS, Bravery K, Ho A, Macqueen S, Collins J, Lock P. A fall in bloodstream infections followed a change to 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropanol for catheter connection antisepsis: a pediatric single center before/after study on a hemopoietic stem cell transplant ward. Am J Infect Control 2009;37(8):626–630.
  120. 120. Hong H, Morrow DF, Sandora TJ, Priebe GP. Disinfection of needleless connectors with chlorhexidine-alcohol provides long-lasting residual disinfectant activity. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(8):e77–e79.
  121. 121. Rupp ME, Yu S, Huerta T, et al. Adequate disinfection of a split-septum needleless intravascular connector with a 5-second alcohol scrub. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(7):661–665.
  122. 122. Simmons S, Bryson C, Porter S. “Scrub the hub”: cleaning duration and reduction in bacterial load on central venous catheters. Crit Care Nurs Q 2011;34(1):31–35.
  123. 123. Lederle FA, Parenti CM, Berskow LC, Ellingson KJ. The idle intravenous catheter. Ann Intern Med 1992;116(9):737–738.
  124. 124. Parenti CM, Lederle FA, Impola CL, Peterson LR. Reduction of unnecessary intravenous catheter use: internal medicine house staff participate in a successful quality improvement project. Arch Intern Med 1994;154(16):1829–1832.
  125. 125. Rotz S, Sopirala MM. Assessment beyond central line bundle: audits for line necessity in infected central lines in a surgical intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(1):88–89.
  126. 126. Cload B, Day AG, Ilan R. Evaluation of unnecessary central venous catheters in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study. Can J Anaesth 2010;57(9):830–835.
  127. 127. Seguin P, Laviolle B, Isslame S, Coue A, Malledant Y. Effectiveness of simple daily sensitization of physicians to the duration of central venous and urinary tract catheterization. Intensive Care Med 2010;36(7):1202–1206.
  128. 128. Faruqi A, Medefindt J, Dutta G, Philip SA, Tompkins D, Carey J. Effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on central line utilization in an acute care hospital. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(6):e211–e215.
  129. 129. Maki DG, Stolz SS, Wheeler S, Mermel LA. A prospective, randomized trial of gauze and two polyurethane dressings for site care of pulmonary artery catheters: implications for catheter management. Crit Care Med 1994;22(11):1729–1737.
  130. 130. Rasero L, Degl’Innocenti M, Mocali M. Comparison of two different time interval protocols for central venous catheter dressing in bone marrow transplant patients: results of a randomized, multicenter study. Haematologica 2000;85:275–279.
  131. 131. Timsit JF, Bouadma L, Ruckly S, et al. Dressing disruption is a major risk factor for catheter-related infections. Crit Care Med 2012;40(6):1707–1714.
  132. 132. Gillies D, O’Riordan L, Wallen M, Morrison A, Rankin K, Nagy S. Optimal timing for intravenous administration set replacement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(4):CD003588.
  133. 133. Ullman AJ, Cooke ML, Gillies D, et al. Optimal timing for intravascular administration set replacement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(9):CD003588.
  134. 134. Levin A, Mason AJ, Jindal KK, Fong IW, Goldstein MB. Prevention of hemodialysis subclavian vein catheter infections by topical povidone-iodine. Kidney Int 1991;40(5):934–938.
  135. 135. Zakrzewska-Bode A, Muytjens HL, Liem KD, Hoogkamp-Korstanje JA. Mupirocin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci, after topical prophylaxis for the reduction of colonization of central venous catheters. J Hosp Infect 1995;31(3):189–193.
  136. 136. Riu S, Ruiz CG, Martinez-Vea A, Peralta C, Oliver JA. Spontaneous rupture of polyurethane peritoneal catheter: a possible deleterious effect of mupirocin ointment. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998;13(7):1870–1871.
  137. 137. Lok CE, Stanley KE, Hux JE, Richardson R, Tobe SW, Conly J. Hemodialysis infection prevention with polysporin ointment. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003;14(1):169–179.
  138. 138. Fong IW. Prevention of haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis catheter related infection by topical povidone-iodine. Postgrad Med J 1993;69(suppl 3):S15–S17.
  139. 139. Battistella M, Bhola C, Lok CE. Long-term follow-up of the Hemodialysis Infection Prevention with Polysporin Ointment (HIPPO) Study: a quality improvement report. Am J Kidney Dis 2011;57(3):432–441.
  140. 140. James MT, Conley J, Tonelli M, Manns BJ, MacRae J, Hemmelgarn BR. Meta-analysis: antibiotics for prophylaxis against hemodialysis catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2008;148(8):596–605.
  141. 141. Gastmeier P, Geffers C, Brandt C, et al. Effectiveness of a nationwide nosocomial infection surveillance system for reducing nosocomial infections. J Hosp Infect 2006;64(1):16–22.
  142. 142. Zingg W, Sax H, Inan C, et al. Hospital-wide surveillance of catheter-related bloodstream infection: from the expected to the unexpected. J Hosp Infect 2009;73(1):41–46.
  143. 143. National Healthcare Safety Network, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/acute-care-hospital/clabsi/index.html. March 11, 2014.
  144. 144. Edwards JR, Peterson KD, Andrus ML, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Report, data summary for 2006, issued June 2007. Am J Infect Control 2007;35(5):290–301.
  145. 145. Woeltje KF, McMullen KM, Butler AM, Goris AJ, Doherty JA. Electronic surveillance for healthcare-associated central line–associated bloodstream infections outside the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(11):1086–1090.
  146. 146. Maki DG, Stolz SM, Wheeler S, Mermel LA. Prevention of central venous catheter–related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1997;127(4):257–266.
  147. 147. Veenstra DL, Saint S, Saha S, Lumley T, Sullivan SD. Efficacy of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;281(3):261–267.
  148. 148. Darouiche RO, Raad II, Heard SO, et al; Catheter Study Group. A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters. N Engl J Med 1999;340(1):1–8.
  149. 149. Hanna HA, Raad II, Hackett B, et al. Antibiotic-impregnated catheters associated with significant decrease in nosocomial and multidrug-resistant bacteremias in critically ill patients. Chest 2003;124(3):1030–1038.
  150. 150. McConnell SA, Gubbins PO, Anaissie EJ. Do antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection? Clin Infect Dis 2003;37(1):65–72.
  151. 151. Rupp ME, Lisco SJ, Lipsett PA, et al. Effect of a second-generation venous catheter impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on central catheter–related infections: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2005;143(8):570–580.
  152. 152. Wang H, Huang T, Jing J, et al. Effectiveness of different central venous catheters for catheter-related infections: a network meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect 2010;76(1):1–11.
  153. 153. Cherry-Bukowiec JR, Denchev K, Dickinson S, et al. Prevention of catheter-related blood stream infection: back to basics? Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2011;12(1):27–32.
  154. 154. Guleri A, Kumar A, Morgan RJ, Hartley M, Roberts DH. Anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine-coated central venous catheters: a case series and review of the literature. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2012;13(3):171–174.
  155. 155. Levy I, Katz J, Solter E, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prevention of colonization of central venous catheters in infants and children: a randomized controlled study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005;24(8):676–679.
  156. 156. Ho KM, Litton E. Use of chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing to prevent vascular and epidural catheter colonization and infection: a meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;58(2):281–287.
  157. 157. Timsit JF, Schwebel C, Bouadma L, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponges and less frequent dressing changes for prevention of catheter-related infections in critically ill adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;301(12):1231–1241.
  158. 158. Ruschulte H, Franke M, Gastmeier P, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter related infections with chlorhexidine gluconate impregnated wound dressings: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Hematol 2009;88(3):267–272.
  159. 159. Camins BC, Richmond AM, Dyer KL, et al. A crossover intervention trial evaluating the efficacy of a chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge in reducing catheter-related bloodstream infections among patients undergoing hemodialysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(11):1118–1123.
  160. 160. Timsit JF, Mimoz O, Mourvillier B, et al. Randomized controlled trial of chlorhexidine dressing and highly adhesive dressing for preventing catheter-related infections in critically ill adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012;186(12):1272–1278.
  161. 161. Menyhay SZ, Maki DG. Preventing central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections: development of an antiseptic barrier cap for needleless connectors. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(10):S174e1–S174e5.
  162. 162. Oto J, Imanaka H, Konno M, Nakataki E, Nishimura M. A prospective clinical trial on prevention of catheter contamination using the hub protection cap for needleless injection device. Am J Infect Control 2011;39(4):309–313.
  163. 163. Sweet MA, Cumpston A, Briggs F, Craig M, Hamadani M. Impact of alcohol-impregnated port protectors and needleless neutral pressure connectors on central line–associated bloodstream infections and contamination of blood cultures in an inpatient oncology unit. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(10):931–934.
  164. 164. Wright MO, Tropp J, Schora DM, et al. Continuous passive disinfection of catheter hubs prevents contamination and bloodstream infection. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(1):33–38.
  165. 165. Loftus RW, Brindeiro BS, Kispert DP, et al. Reduction in intraoperative bacterial contamination of peripheral intravenous tubing through the use of a passive catheter care system. Anesth Analg 2012;115(6):1315–1323.
  166. 166. Bertini G, Elia S, Ceciarini F, Dani C. Reduction of catheter-related bloodstream infections in preterm infants by the use of catheters with the AgION antimicrobial system. Early Hum Dev 2013;89(1):21–25.
  167. 167. Chelliah A, Heydon KH, Zaoutis TE, et al. Observational trial of antibiotic-coated central venous catheters in critically ill pediatric patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2007;26(9):816–820.
  168. 168. Bhutta A, Gilliam C, Honeycutt M, et al. Reduction of bloodstream infections associated with catheters in paediatric intensive care unit: stepwise approach. BMJ 2007;334(7589):362–365.
  169. 169. Weber JM, Sheridan RL, Fagan S, Ryan CM, Pasternack MS, Tompkins RG. Incidence of catheter-associated bloodstream infection after introduction of minocycline and rifampin antimicrobial-coated catheters in a pediatric burn population. J Burn Care Res 2012;33(4):539–543.
  170. 170. Carratala J, Niubo J, Fernandez-Sevilla A, et al. Randomized, double-blind trial of an antibiotic-lock technique for prevention of gram-positive central venous catheter–related infection in neutropenic patients with cancer. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43(9):2200–2204.
  171. 171. Henrickson KJ, Axtell RA, Hoover SM, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter–related infections and thrombotic events in immunocompromised children by the use of vancomycin/ciprofloxacin/heparin flush solution: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial. J Clin Oncol 2000;18(6):1269–1278.
  172. 172. Safdar N, Maki DG. Use of vancomycin-containing lock or flush solutions for prevention of bloodstream infection associated with central venous access devices: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized trials. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43(4):474–484.
  173. 173. Labriola L, Crott R, Jadoul M. Preventing haemodialysis catheter-related bacteraemia with an antimicrobial lock solution: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23(5):1666–1672.
  174. 174. Snaterse M, Ruger W, Scholte Op Reimer WJ, Lucas C. Antibiotic-based catheter lock solutions for prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. J Hosp Infect 2010;75(1):1–11.
  175. 175. Oliveira C, Nasr A, Brindle M, Wales PW. Ethanol locks to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections in parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2012;129(2):318–329.
  176. 176. Yahav D, Rozen-Zvi B, Gafter-Gvili A, Leibovici L, Gafter U, Paul M. Antimicrobial lock solutions for the prevention of infections associated with intravascular catheters in patients undergoing hemodialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47(1):83–93.
  177. 177. Opilla MT, Kirby DF, Edmond MB. Use of ethanol lock therapy to reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections in home parenteral nutrition patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2007;31(4):302–305.
  178. 178. Slobbe L, Doorduijn JK, Lugtenburg PJ, et al. Prevention of catheter-related bacteremia with a daily ethanol lock in patients with tunnelled catheters: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2010;5(5):e10840.
  179. 179. Cober MP, Kovacevich DS, Teitelbaum DH. Ethanol-lock therapy for the prevention of central venous access device infections in pediatric patients with intestinal failure. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011;35(1):67–73.
  180. 180. Heng AE, Abdelkader MH, Diaconita M, et al. Impact of short term use of interdialytic 60% ethanol lock solution on tunneled silicone catheter dysfunction. Clin Nephrol 2011;75(6):534–541.
  181. 181. Hemmelgarn BR, Moist LM, Lok CE, et al. Prevention of dialysis catheter malfunction with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. N Engl J Med 2011;364(4):303–312.
  182. 182. McKee R, Dunsmuir R, Whitby M, Garden OJ. Does antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of catheter insertion reduce the incidence of catheter-related sepsis in intravenous nutrition? J Hosp Infect 1985;6(4):419–425.
  183. 183. Ranson MR, Oppenheim BA, Jackson A, Kamthan AG, Scarffe JH. Double-blind placebo controlled study of vancomycin prophylaxis for central venous catheter insertion in cancer patients. J Hosp Infect 1990;15(1):95–102.
  184. 184. Sandoe JA, Kumar B, Stoddart B, et al. Effect of extended perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis on intravascular catheter colonization and infection in cardiothoracic surgery patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;52(5):877–879.
  185. 185. van de Wetering MD, van Woensel JB, Kremer LC, Caron HN. Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing early gram-positive central venous catheter infections in oncology patients: a Cochrane systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2005;31(3):186–196.
  186. 186. Karanlik H, Kurul S, Saip P, et al. The role of antibiotic prophylaxis in totally implantable venous access device placement: results of a single-center prospective randomized trial. Am J Surg 2011;202(1):10–15.
  187. 187. Eyer S, Brummitt C, Crossley K, Siegel R, Cerra F. Catheter-related sepsis: prospective, randomized study of three methods of long-term catheter maintenance. Crit Care Med 1990;18(10):1073–1079.
  188. 188. Cobb DK, High KP, Sawyer RG, et al. A controlled trial of scheduled replacement of central venous and pulmonary-artery catheters. N Engl J Med 1992;327(15):1062–1068.
  189. 189. Cook D, Randolph A, Kernerman P, et al. Central venous catheter replacement strategies: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 1997;25(8):1417–1424.
  190. 190. Maragakis LL, Bradley KL, Song X, et al. Increased catheter-related bloodstream infection rates after the introduction of a new mechanical valve intravenous access port. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(1):67–70.
  191. 191. Field K, McFarlane C, Cheng AC, et al. Incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection among patients with a needleless, mechanical valve–based intravenous connector in an Australian hematology-oncology unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(5):610–613.
  192. 192. Salgado CD, Chinnes L, Paczesny TH, Cantey JR. Increased rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection associated with use of a needleless mechanical valve device at a long-term acute care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(6):684–688.
  193. 193. Rupp ME, Sholtz LA, Jourdan DR, et al. Outbreak of bloodstream infection temporally associated with the use of an intravascular needleless valve. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44(11):1408–1414.
  194. 194. Jarvis WR, Murphy C, Hall KK, et al. Health care–associated bloodstream infections associated with negative- or positive-pressure or displacement mechanical valve needleless connectors. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49(12):1821–1827.
  195. 195. Miller JM, Goetz AM, Squier C, Muder RR. Reduction in nosocomial intravenous device-related bacteremias after institution of an intravenous therapy team. J Intraven Nurs 1996;19(2):103–106.
  196. 196. Soifer NE, Borzak S, Edlin BR, Weinstein RA. Prevention of peripheral venous catheter complications with an intravenous therapy team: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 1998;158(5):473–477.
  197. 197. Koh DB, Gowardman JR, Rickard CM, Robertson IK, Brown A. Prospective study of peripheral arterial catheter infection and comparison with concurrently sited central venous catheters. Crit Care Med 2008;36(2):397–402.
  198. 198. Lucet JC, Bouadma L, Zahar JR, et al. Infectious risk associated with arterial catheters compared with central venous catheters. Crit Care Med 2010;38(4):1030–1035.
  199. 199. Tokars JI, Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Horan TC. Measurement of the impact of risk adjustment for central line–days on interpretation of central line–associated bloodstream infection rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(9):1025–1029.
  200. 200. Klevens RM, Tokars JI, Edwards J, Horan T. Sampling for collection of central line–day denominators in surveillance of healthcare-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(4):338–342.
  201. 201. Thompson ND, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, et al. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling to estimate central line–days: simplification of the National Healthcare Safety Network surveillance methods. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(3):221–228.
  202. 202. Casey AL, Karpanen TJ, Nightingale P, Cook M, Elliott TS. Microbiological comparison of a silver-coated and a non-coated needleless intravascular connector in clinical use. J Hosp Infect 2012;80(4):299–303.
  203. 203. Webster J, Gillies D, O’Riordan E, Sherriff KL, Rickard CM. Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(11):CD003827.
  204. 204. Batra R, Cooper BS, Whiteley C, Patel AK, Wyncoll D, Edgeworth JD. Efficacy and limitation of a chlorhexidine-based decolonization strategy in preventing transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis 2010;50(2):210–217.
  205. 205. Bizzarro MJ, Sabo B, Noonan M, Bonfiglio MP, Northrup V, Diefenbach K. A quality improvement initiative to reduce central line–associated bloodstream infections in a neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(3):241–248.
  206. 206. Sawyer M, Weeks K, Goeschel CA, et al. Using evidence, rigorous measurement, and collaboration to eliminate central catheter–associated bloodstream infections. Crit Care Med 2010;38(suppl 8):S292–S298.
  207. 207. Widmer AF, Nettleman M, Flint K, Wenzel RP. The clinical impact of culturing central venous catheters: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med 1992;152(6):1299–1302.
  208. 208. Raad II, Baba M, Bodey GP. Diagnosis of catheter-related infections: the role of surveillance and targeted quantitative skin cultures. Clin Infect Dis 1995;20(3):593–597.
  209. 209. Pittet D, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infections: secular trends in rates, mortality, and contribution to total hospital deaths. Arch Intern Med 1995;155(11):1177–1184.
  210. 210. Wong ES, Rupp ME, Mermel L, et al. Public disclosure of healthcare-associated infections: the role of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26(2):210–212.
  211. 211. Aswani MS, Reagan J, Jin L, Pronovost PJ, Goeschel C. Variation in public reporting of central line–associated bloodstream infections by state. Am J Med Qual 2011;26(5):387–395.
  212. 212. Talbot TR, Bratzler DW, Carrico RM, et al. Public reporting of health care–associated surveillance data: recommendations from the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Ann Intern Med 2013;159(9):631–635.
  213. 213. Healthcare-Associated Infection Working Group of the Joint Public Policy Committee. Essentials of Public Reporting of Healthcare-Associated Infections: A Tool Kit. 2007. http://www.shea-online.org/Assets/files/Essentials_of_Public_Reporting_Tool_Kit.pdf. March 11, 2014.
  214. 214. National Quality Forum (NQF). National Voluntary Consensus Standards for the Reporting of Healthcare-Associated Infection Data. Washington, DC: NQF, 2008. http://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2008/03/National_Voluntary_Consensus_Standards_for_the_Reporting_of_Healthcare-Associated_Infection_Data.aspx. March 11, 2014.
  215. 215. Weaver SJ, Lubomksi LH, Wilson RF, Pfoh ER, Martinez KA, Dy SM. Promoting a culture of safety as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158(5 pt 2):369–374.
  216. 216. Hatler CW, Mast D, Corderella J, et al. Using evidence and process improvement strategies to enhance healthcare outcomes for the critically ill: a pilot project. Am J Crit Care 2006;15(6):549–555.
  217. 218. Tools for Reducing Line Associated Blood Stream Infections. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/education/curriculum-tools/clabsitools/index.html.
  218. 219. Silow-Carrol S, Edwards JN. Eliminating Central Line Infections and Spreading Success at High-Performing Hospitals. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 2011.
  219. 220. Huang GC, Newman LR, Schwartzstein RM, et al. Procedural competence in internal medicine residents: validity of a central venous catheter insertion assessment instrument. Acad Med 2009;84(8):1127–1134.
  220. 221. Safdar N, Abad C. Educational interventions for prevention of healthcare-associated infection: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2008;36(3):933–940.
  221. 222. Smith JS, Kirksey KM, Becker H, Brown A. Autonomy and self-efficacy as influencing factors in nurses’ behavioral intention to disinfect needleless intravenous systems. J Infus Nurs 2011;34(3):193–200.
  222. 223. Faruqi A, Medefindt J, Dutta G, Philip SA, Tompkins D, Carey J. Effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on central line utilization in an acute care hospital. Am J Infect Control 2012;40(6):e211–e215.
  223. 224. Warren D, Zack J, Mayfield J, et al. The effect of an education program on the incidence of central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infection in a medical ICU. Chest 2004;126(5):1612–1618.
  224. 225. Warren DK, Yokoe DS, Climo MW, et al. Preventing catheter-associated bloodstream infections: a survey of policies for insertion and care of central venous catheters from hospitals in the Prevention Epicenter Program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(1):8–13.
  225. 226. Chittick P, Sherertz RJ. Recognition and prevention of nosocomial vascular device and related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2010;38(suppl 8):S363–S372.
  226. 227. Moureau N, Lamperti M, Kelly LJ, et al. Evidence-based consensus on the insertion of central venous access devices: definition of minimal requirements for training. Br J Anaesth 2013;110(3):347–356.
  227. 228. Warren DK, Cosgrove SE, Diekema DJ, et al. A multicenter intervention to prevent catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(7):662–669.
  228. 229. Sannoh S, Clones B, Munoz J, Montecalvo M, Parvez B. A multimodal approach to central venous catheter hub care can decrease catheter-related bloodstream infection. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(6):424–429.
  229. 230. Banks CM, Gilmartin H, Fink RM. Education methods for maintaining nursing competency in low-volume, high-risk procedures in the rural setting: bridging the theory to practice gap. J Nurses Staff Dev 2010;26(3):E1–E7.
  230. 231. Comer A, Harris AD, Shardell MP, et al. Web-based training improves knowledge about central line bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(12):1219–1222.
  231. 232. Guembe M, Pérez-Parra A, Gómez E, et al. Impact on knowledge and practice of an intervention to control catheter infection in the ICU. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;31(10):2799–2808.
  232. 233. Zack J. Zeroing in on zero tolerance for central line–associated bacteremia. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(10):S176.e1.
  233. 234. Aboelela SW, Stone PW, Larson EL. Effectiveness of bundled behavioural interventions to control healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review of the literature. J Hosp Infect 2007;66(2):101–108.
  234. 235. Sherertz R, Ely E, Westbrook D, et al. Education of physicians-in-training can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med 2000;132(8):641–648.
  235. 236. Walz JM, Memtsoudis SG, Heard SO. Analytic reviews: prevention of central venous catheter bloodstream infections. J Intensive Care Med 2010;25(3):131–138.
  236. 237. Rodriguez-Paz JM, Kennedy M, Salas E, et al. Beyond “see one, do one, teach one”: toward a different training paradigm. Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18(1):63–68.
  237. 238. Ahya SN, Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Tuazon J, McGaghie WC, Wayne DB. Clinical performance and skill retention after simulation-based education for nephrology fellows. Semin Dial 2012;25(4):470–473.
  238. 239. Ault MJ, Rosen BT, Ault B. The use of tissue models for vascular access training: phase I of the procedural patient safety initiative. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21(5):514–517.
  239. 240. Evans LV, Dodge KL. Simulation and patient safety: evaluative checklists for central venous catheter insertion. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19(suppl 3):i42–i46.
  240. 241. Ahlin C, Klang-Söderkvist B, Brundin S, Hellström B, Pettersson K, Johansson E. Implementation of a written protocol for management of central venous access devices: a theoretical and practical education, including bedside examinations. J Infus Nurs 2006;29(5):253–259.
  241. 242. Segreti J, Garcia-Houchins S, Gorski L, et al. Consensus conference on prevention of central line–associated bloodstream infections: 2009. J Infus Nurs 2011;34(2):126–133.
  242. 243. Labeau S, Vereecke A, Vandijck DM, Claes B, Blot SI. Critical care nurses’ knowledge of evidence-based guidelines for preventing infections associated with central venous catheters: an evaluation questionnaire. Am J Crit Care 2008;17(1):65–71.
  243. 244. Labeau SO, Vandijck DM, Rello J, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for preventing central venous catheter–related infection: results of a knowledge test among 3405 European intensive care nurses. Crit Care Med 2009;37(1):320–323.
  244. 245. Marra AR, Cal RG, Durao MS, et al. Impact of a program to prevent central line–associated bloodstream infection in the zero tolerance era. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(6):434–439.
  245. 246. Wheeler DS, Giaccone MJ, Hutchinson N, et al. A hospital-wide quality-improvement collaborative to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Pediatrics 2011;128(4):e995–e1004.
  246. 247. Harting BP, Talbot TR, Dellit TH, et al. University HealthSystem Consortium quality performance benchmarking study of the insertion and care of central venous catheters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(5):440–442.
  247. 248. Jeffries HE, Mason W, Brewer M, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter–associated bloodstream infections in pediatric intensive care units: a performance improvement collaborative. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30(7):645–651.
  248. 249. Stevens TP, Schulman J. Evidence-based approach to preventing central line–associated bloodstream infection in the NICU. Acta Paediatr Suppl 2012;101(464):11–16.
  249. 250. Powers RJ, Wirtschafter DW. Decreasing central line associated bloodstream infection in neonatal intensive care. Clin Perinatol 2010;37(1):247–272.
  250. 251. Rupp ME, Cassling K, Faber H, et al. Hospital-wide assessment of compliance with central venous catheter dressing recommendations. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(1):89–91.
  251. 252. O’Grady N, Alexander M, Burns L, Dellinger E. Guideline for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections, 2011. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/BSI/BSI-guidelines-2011.html. Accessed April 1, 2011.
  252. 253. Son CH, Daniels TL, Eagan J, et al. Central line–associated bloodstream infection surveillance outside the intensive care unit: a multicenter survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(9):869–874.
  253. 254. Woeltje KF, McMullen KM, Butler AM, Goris AJ, Doherty JA. Electronic surveillance for healthcare-associated central line–associated bloodstream infections outside the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(11):1086–1090.
  254. 255. Berhe M, Edmond MB, Bearman G. Measurement and feedback of infection control process measures in the intensive care unit: impact on compliance. Am J Infect Control 2006;34(8):537–539.
  255. 256. Assanasen S, Edmond M, Bearman G. Impact of 2 different levels of performance feedback on compliance with infection control process measures in 2 intensive care units. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(6):407–413.
  256. 257. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924–926.
  257. 258. GRADE. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care website. http://canadiantaskforce.ca/methods/grade/. Accessed December 31, 2013.