Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The surveillance of hospital-acquired infections in Germany is usually conducted via manual chart review; this, however, proves resource intensive and is prone to a certain degree of subjectivity. Documentation based on electronic routine data may present an alternative to manual methods. We compared the data derived via manual chart review to that which was derived from electronic routine data.
METHODS: Data used for the analyses was obtained from five of the University of Leipzig Medical Center\'s (ULMC) ICUs. Clinical data was collected according to the Protection against Infection Act (IfSG); documentation thereof was carried out in hospital information systems (HIS) as well as in the ICU-KISS module provided by the National Reference Center for the Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections (NRZ). Algorithmically derived data was generated via an algorithm developed in the EFFECT study; ward-movement data was linked with microbiological test results, generating a data set that allows for evaluation as to whether or not an infection was ICU-acquired.
RESULTS: Approximately 75% of MDRO cases and 85% of cases of sepsis/primary bacteremia were classified as ICU-acquired by both manual chart review and EFFECT. Most discrepancies between the manual and algorithmic approaches were due to differentiating definitions regarding the patients\' time at risk for acquiring MDRO/bacteremia.
CONCLUSIONS: The concordance between manual chart review and algorithmically generated data was considerable. This study shows that hospital infection surveillance based on electronically generated routine data may be a worthwhile and sustainable alternative to manual chart review.
METHODS: Data used for the analyses was obtained from five of the University of Leipzig Medical Center\'s (ULMC) ICUs. Clinical data was collected according to the Protection against Infection Act (IfSG); documentation thereof was carried out in hospital information systems (HIS) as well as in the ICU-KISS module provided by the National Reference Center for the Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections (NRZ). Algorithmically derived data was generated via an algorithm developed in the EFFECT study; ward-movement data was linked with microbiological test results, generating a data set that allows for evaluation as to whether or not an infection was ICU-acquired.
RESULTS: Approximately 75% of MDRO cases and 85% of cases of sepsis/primary bacteremia were classified as ICU-acquired by both manual chart review and EFFECT. Most discrepancies between the manual and algorithmic approaches were due to differentiating definitions regarding the patients\' time at risk for acquiring MDRO/bacteremia.
CONCLUSIONS: The concordance between manual chart review and algorithmically generated data was considerable. This study shows that hospital infection surveillance based on electronically generated routine data may be a worthwhile and sustainable alternative to manual chart review.
摘要：
背景：在德国，医院获得性感染的监视通常是通过手动图表审查进行的；这，然而,证明资源密集，容易存在一定程度的主观性。基于电子常规数据的文档可能是手动方法的替代方法。我们将通过手动图表审查得出的数据与从电子常规数据得出的数据进行了比较。
方法：用于分析的数据来自莱比锡大学医学中心（ULMC）的5个ICU。根据《预防感染法案》（IfSG）收集临床数据；其记录在医院信息系统（HIS）以及由国家医院感染监测参考中心（NRZ）提供的ICU-KISS模块中进行。通过Effect研究中开发的算法生成算法得出的数据；病房移动数据与微生物测试结果相关联，生成允许评估感染是否是ICU获得性的数据集。
结果：大约75%的MDRO病例和85%的败血症/原发菌血症病例通过手动图表回顾和Effect被归类为ICU获得性。手动方法和算法方法之间的大多数差异是由于对患者发生MDRO/菌血症的风险时间的区分定义。
结论：手动图表审查和算法生成的数据之间的一致性是相当大的。这项研究表明，基于电子生成的常规数据的医院感染监测可能是手动图表审查的一种有价值且可持续的替代方法。
方法：用于分析的数据来自莱比锡大学医学中心（ULMC）的5个ICU。
结果：大约75%的MDRO病例和85%的败血症/原发菌血症病例通过手动图表回顾和Effect被归类为ICU获得性。
结论：手动图表审查和算法生成的数据之间的一致性是相当大的。
