학술논문
Impact of a Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on localized insertion site infection to prevent central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI)
Document Type
article
Author
Gohil, Shruti K; Yim, Jennifer; Quan, Kathleen; Espinoza, Maurice; Thompson, Deborah J; Kong, Allen P; Bahadori, Bardia; Tjoa, Tom; Paiji, Chris; Rudkin, Scott; Rashid, Syma; Hong, Suzie S; Dickey, Linda; Alsharif, Mohamad N; Wilson, William C; Amin, Alpesh N; Chang, Justin; Khusbu, Usme; Huang, Susan S
Source
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 41(1)
Subject
Language
Abstract
ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention.DesignA pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study.Setting and participantsAdult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center.MethodsWe evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014-January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015-October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated.ResultsAmong 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P < .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.34; P < .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P < .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P < .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039).ConclusionsThe CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal.