Developing information technology for infection prevention surveillance

The potential to automate at least part of the surveillance process for health care-associated infections was seen as soon as hospitals began to implement computer systems. Progress toward automated surveillance has been ongoing for the last several decades. But as more information becomes available electronically in the healthcare setting, the promise of electronic surveillance for healthcare-associated infections has become closer to reality. Although true fully automated surveillance is not here yet, significant progress is being made at a number of centers for electronic surveillance of central catheter-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and other healthcare-associated infections. We review the progress that has been made in this area and issues that need to be addressed as surveillance systems are implemented, as well as promising areas for future development.

Clinicians' response to computerized detection of infections

OBJECTIVE

To analyze whether computer-generated reminders about infections could influence clinicians' practice patterns and consequently improve the detection and management of nosocomial infections.

DESIGN

The conclusions produced by an expert system developed to detect and manage infections were presented to the attending clinicians in a pediatric hospital to determine whether this information could improve detection and management. Clinician interventions were compared before and after the implementation of the system.

MEASUREMENTS

The responses of the clinicians (staff physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) to the reminders were determined by review of paper medical charts. Main outcome measures were the number of suggestions to treat and manage infections that were followed before and after the implementation of COMPISS (Computerized Pediatric Infection Surveillance System). The clinicians' opinions about the system were assessed by means of a paper questionnaire distributed following the experiment.

RESULTS

The results failed to show a statistical difference between the clinicians' treatment strategies before and after implementation of the system (P: > 0.33 for clinicians working in the emergency room and P: > 0.45 for clinicians working in the pediatric intensive care unit). The questionnaire results showed that the respondents appreciated the information presented by the system.

CONCLUSION

The computer-generated reminders about infections were unable to influence the practice patterns of clinicians. The methodologic problems that may have contributed to this negative result are discussed.