ArticleThe Journal of hospital infection2020
A passive monitoring tool using hospital administrative data enables earlier specific detection of healthcare-acquired infections.
Article in The Journal of hospital infection, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovative Techniques for Infection Control and Surveillance in Hospital Settings and Long-Term Care Facilities: A Scoping Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Investigating healthcare worker mobility and patient contacts within a UK hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.Communications medicine · 2022Article
- Prediction of hospital-onset COVID-19 infections using dynamic networks of patient contact: an international retrospective cohort study.The Lancet. Digital health · 2022Article
- Use of clinical data to augment healthcare worker contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Analysis of social interactions and risk factors relevant to the spread of infectious diseases at hospitals and nursing homes.PloS one · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on the healthcare system. Current methods for detecting these infections are constrained by combinations of high cost, long processing times and imperfect accuracy, reducing their effectiveness.
methodsThis study examined whether the amount of time a patient spends on a ward with other patients clinically suspected of infection, termed 'co-presence', can be used as a tool to predict subsequent healthcare-associated infection. Compared with contact tracing, this leverages passively collected electronic data rather than manually collected data, allowing for improved monitoring. All 133,304 inpatient records between 2011 and 2015 were abstracted from a healthcare system in the UK. The area under the receiver-operator curve (AUROC) for each of five pathogens was calculated based on co-presence time, sensitivity and specificity of the test, and how much earlier co-presence would have predicted infection for the true-positive cases.
findingsFor the five pathogens, AUROC ranged from 0.92 to 0.99, and was 0.52 for the negative control. Optimal cut-points of co-presence ranged from 25 to 59 h, and would have led to detection of true-positive cases up to an average of 1 day earlier.
interpretationThese findings show that co-presence time would help to predict healthcare-acquired infection, and would do so earlier than the current standard of care. Using this measure prospectively in hospitals based on real-time data could limit the consequences of infection, both by being able to treat individual infected patients earlier, and by preventing potential secondary infections stemming from the original infected patient.
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.