Do we need to change catheter-related bloodstream infection surveillance in the Netherlands? A qualitative study among infection prevention professionals.

OBJECTIVES: Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are a common healthcare-associated infection and therefore targeted by surveillance programmes in many countries. Concerns, however, have been voiced regarding the reliability and construct validity of CRBSI surveillance and the connection with the current diagnostic procedures. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of infection control practitioners (ICPs) and medical professionals with the current CRBSI surveillance in the Netherlands and their suggestions for improvement. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) with ICPs and medical professionals separately, followed by semistructured interviews to investigate whether the points raised in the FGDs were recognised and confirmed by the interviewees. Analyses were performed using thematic analyses. SETTING: Basic, teaching and academic hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 24 ICPs and 9 medical professionals. RESULTS: Main themes derived from experiences with current surveillance were (1) ICPs’ doubt regarding the yield of surveillance given the low incidence of CRBSI, the high workload and IT problems; (2) the experienced lack of leadership and responsibility for recording information needed for surveillance and (3) difficulties with applying and interpreting the CRBSI definition. Suggestions were made to simplify the surveillance protocol, expand the follow-up and surveillance to homecare settings, simplify the definition and customise it for specific patient groups. Participants reported hoping for and counting on automatisation solutions to support future surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals several problems with the feasibility and acceptance of the current CRBSI surveillance and proposes several suggestions for improvement. This provides valuable input for future surveillance activities, thereby taking into account automation possibilities

Appropriate use of indwelling urethra catheters in hospitalized patients: results of a multicentre prevalence study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although indwelling urethra catheterization is a medical intervention with well-defined risks, studies show that approximately 14–38% of the indwelling urethra catheters (IUCs) are placed without a specific medical indication. In this paper we describe the prevalence of IUCs, including their inappropriate use in the Netherlands. We also determine factors associated with inappropriate use of IUCs in hospitalized patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 28 Dutch hospitals, prevalence surveys were performed biannually in 2009 and 2010 within the PREZIES-network. All patients admitted to a participating hospital and who had an IUC in place at the day of the survey were included. Pre-determined criteria were used to categorize the indication for catheterization as appropriate or inappropriate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 14,252 patients was included and 3020 (21.2%) of them had an IUC (range hospitals 13.4-27.3). Initial catheter placement was inappropriate in 5.2% of patients and 7.5% patients had an inappropriate indication at the day of the survey. In multivariate analyses inappropriate catheter use at the time of placement was associated with female sex, older age, admission on a non-intensive care ward, and not having had surgery. Inappropriate catheter use at the time of survey showed comparable associated factors.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although lower than in many other countries, inappropriate use of IUC is present in Dutch hospitals. To reduce the inappropriate use of IUCs, recommended components of care (bundle for UTI), including daily revision and registration of the indication for catheterization, should be introduced for all patients with an IUC. Additionally, an education and awareness campaign about appropriate indications for IUC should be available.</p