학술논문

Discord among Performance Measures for Central Line—Associated Bloodstream Infection
Document Type
article
Source
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 34(2)
Subject
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences
Clinical Sciences
Hematology
Clinical Research
Sepsis
Academic Medical Centers
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged
80 and over
Bacteremia
California
Catheter-Related Infections
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
U.S.
Clinical Coding
Cross Infection
Female
Humans
Insurance Claim Review
Male
Mandatory Programs
Medical Audit
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
United States
Young Adult
adult
aged
article
catheter infection
comorbidity
disease surveillance
female
health care policy
healthcare associated infection
hospital admission
human
length of stay
major clinical study
male
medical record review
retrospective study
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Medical and Health Sciences
Epidemiology
Biomedical and clinical sciences
Health sciences
Language
Abstract
BackgroundCentral line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is a national target for mandatory reporting and a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services target for value-based purchasing. Differences in chart review versus claims-based metrics used by national agencies and groups raise concerns about the validity of these measures.ObjectiveEvaluate consistency and reasons for discordance among chart review and claims-based CLABSI events.MethodsWe conducted 2 multicenter retrospective cohort studies within 6 academic institutions. A total of 150 consecutive patients were identified with CLABSI on the basis of National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) criteria (NHSN cohort), and an additional 150 consecutive patients were identified with CLABSI on the basis of claims codes (claims cohort). All events had full-text medical record reviews and were identified as concordant or discordant with the other metric.ResultsIn the NHSN cohort, there were 152 CLABSIs among 150 patients, and 73.0% of these cases were discordant with claims data. Common reasons for the lack of associated claims codes included coding omission and lack of physician documentation of bacteremia cause. In the claims cohort, there were 150 CLABSIs among 150 patients, and 65.3% of these cases were discordant with NHSN criteria. Common reasons for the lack of NHSN reporting were identification of non-CLABSI with bacteremia meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria for an alternative infection source.ConclusionSubstantial discordance between NHSN and claims-based CLABSI indicators persists. Compared with standardized CDC chart review criteria, claims data often had both coding omissions and misclassification of non-CLABSI infections as CLABSI. Additionally, claims did not identify any additional CLABSIs for CDC reporting. NHSN criteria are a more consistent interhospital standard for CLABSI reporting.