ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2018
Impact of a Multidisciplinary Infection Prevention Initiative on Central Line and Urinary Catheter Utilization in a Long-term Acute Care Hospital.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Central venous catheter care and the healthcare-environment interface: outcomes of a quality improvement initiative in a resource-constrained ICU.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections, Bacteremia, and Infection Control Interventions in a Hospital: A Six-Year Time-Series Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Stewardship Intervention to Optimize Central Venous Catheter Utilization in Critically Ill Children.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProlonged central line (CL) and urinary catheter (UC) use can increase risk of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI).
methodsThis interventional study conducted in a 76-bed long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) in Southeast Michigan was divided into 3 periods: pre-intervention (January 2015-June 2015), intervention (July-November 2015), and postintervention (December 2015-March 2017). During the intervention period, a multidisciplinary infection prevention team (MIPT) made weekly recommendations to remove unnecessary CL/UC or switch to alternate urinary/intravenous access. Device utilization ratios (DURs) and infection rates were compared between the study periods. Interrupted time series (ITS) and 0-inflated poisson (ZIP) regression were used to analyze DUR and CLABSI/CAUTI data, respectively.
resultsUC-DUR was 31% in the pre- and postintervention periods and 21% in the intervention period. CL-DUR decreased from 46% (pre-intervention) to 39% (intervention) to 37% (postintervention). The results of ITS analysis indicated nonsignificant decrease and increase in level/trend in DURs coinciding with our intervention. The CAUTI rate per catheter-days did not decrease during intervention (4.36) compared with pre- (2.49) and postintervention (1.93). The CLABSI rate per catheter-days decreased by 73% during intervention (0.39) compared with pre-intervention (1.45). Rates again quadrupled postintervention (1.58). ZIP analysis indicated a beneficial effect of intervention on infection rates without reaching statistical significance.
conclusionsWe demonstrated that a workable MIPT initiative focusing on removal of unnecessary CL and UC can be easily implemented in an LTACH requiring minimal time and resources. A rebound increase in UC-DURs to pre-intervention levels after intervention end indicates that continued vigilance is required to maintain performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.