Diagnosing and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections

Susan E. Beekmann, Daniel J. Diekema, W Charles Huskins, Loreen Herwaldt, John M. Boyce, Robert J. Sherertz, Philip M. Polgreen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) is often controversial, and existing guidelines differ in important ways. Objective: To determine both the range of practices involved in obtaining blood culture samples and how central line-associated infections are diagnosed and to obtain members' opinions regarding the process of designating bloodstream infections as publicly reportable CLABSIs. Design: Electronic and paper 11-question survey of infectious-diseases physician members of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Emerging Infections Network (IDSA EIN). Participants: All 1,364 IDSA EIN members were invited to participate. Results: 692 (51%) members responded; 52% of respondents with adult practices reported that more than half of the blood culture samples for intensive care unit (ICU) patients with central lines were drawn through existing lines. A sizable majority of respondents used time to positivity, differential time to positivity when paired blood cultures are used, and quantitative culture of catheter tips when diagnosing CLABSI or determining the source of that bacteremia. When determining whether a bacteremia met the reportable CLABSI definition, a majority used a decision method that involved clinical judgment. Conclusions: Our survey documents a strong preference for drawing 1 set of blood culture samples from a peripheral line and 1 from the central line when evaluating fever in an ICU patient, as recommended by IDSA guidelines and in contrast to current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. Our data show substantial variability when infectious-diseases physicians were asked to determine whether bloodstream infections were primary bacteremias, and therefore subject to public reporting by National Healthcare Safety Network guidelines, or secondary bacteremias, which are not reportable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)875-882
Number of pages8
JournalInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Volume33
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2012

Fingerprint

Infection
Bacteremia
Communicable Diseases
Guidelines
Intensive Care Units
Physicians
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Fever
Catheters
Delivery of Health Care
Safety
Surveys and Questionnaires
Blood Culture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Epidemiology
  • Infectious Diseases

Cite this

Beekmann, S. E., Diekema, D. J., Huskins, W. C., Herwaldt, L., Boyce, J. M., Sherertz, R. J., & Polgreen, P. M. (2012). Diagnosing and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 33(9), 875-882. https://doi.org/10.1086/667379

Diagnosing and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections. / Beekmann, Susan E.; Diekema, Daniel J.; Huskins, W Charles; Herwaldt, Loreen; Boyce, John M.; Sherertz, Robert J.; Polgreen, Philip M.

In: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 33, No. 9, 09.2012, p. 875-882.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Beekmann, SE, Diekema, DJ, Huskins, WC, Herwaldt, L, Boyce, JM, Sherertz, RJ & Polgreen, PM 2012, 'Diagnosing and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections', Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 875-882. https://doi.org/10.1086/667379
Beekmann, Susan E. ; Diekema, Daniel J. ; Huskins, W Charles ; Herwaldt, Loreen ; Boyce, John M. ; Sherertz, Robert J. ; Polgreen, Philip M. / Diagnosing and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections. In: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 2012 ; Vol. 33, No. 9. pp. 875-882.
@article{c1a0975062254238aeb7dce0b70c0af7,
title = "Diagnosing and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections",
abstract = "Background: The diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) is often controversial, and existing guidelines differ in important ways. Objective: To determine both the range of practices involved in obtaining blood culture samples and how central line-associated infections are diagnosed and to obtain members' opinions regarding the process of designating bloodstream infections as publicly reportable CLABSIs. Design: Electronic and paper 11-question survey of infectious-diseases physician members of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Emerging Infections Network (IDSA EIN). Participants: All 1,364 IDSA EIN members were invited to participate. Results: 692 (51{\%}) members responded; 52{\%} of respondents with adult practices reported that more than half of the blood culture samples for intensive care unit (ICU) patients with central lines were drawn through existing lines. A sizable majority of respondents used time to positivity, differential time to positivity when paired blood cultures are used, and quantitative culture of catheter tips when diagnosing CLABSI or determining the source of that bacteremia. When determining whether a bacteremia met the reportable CLABSI definition, a majority used a decision method that involved clinical judgment. Conclusions: Our survey documents a strong preference for drawing 1 set of blood culture samples from a peripheral line and 1 from the central line when evaluating fever in an ICU patient, as recommended by IDSA guidelines and in contrast to current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. Our data show substantial variability when infectious-diseases physicians were asked to determine whether bloodstream infections were primary bacteremias, and therefore subject to public reporting by National Healthcare Safety Network guidelines, or secondary bacteremias, which are not reportable.",
author = "Beekmann, {Susan E.} and Diekema, {Daniel J.} and Huskins, {W Charles} and Loreen Herwaldt and Boyce, {John M.} and Sherertz, {Robert J.} and Polgreen, {Philip M.}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1086/667379",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "875--882",
journal = "Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology",
issn = "0899-823X",
publisher = "University of Chicago Press",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnosing and reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections

AU - Beekmann, Susan E.

AU - Diekema, Daniel J.

AU - Huskins, W Charles

AU - Herwaldt, Loreen

AU - Boyce, John M.

AU - Sherertz, Robert J.

AU - Polgreen, Philip M.

PY - 2012/9

Y1 - 2012/9

N2 - Background: The diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) is often controversial, and existing guidelines differ in important ways. Objective: To determine both the range of practices involved in obtaining blood culture samples and how central line-associated infections are diagnosed and to obtain members' opinions regarding the process of designating bloodstream infections as publicly reportable CLABSIs. Design: Electronic and paper 11-question survey of infectious-diseases physician members of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Emerging Infections Network (IDSA EIN). Participants: All 1,364 IDSA EIN members were invited to participate. Results: 692 (51%) members responded; 52% of respondents with adult practices reported that more than half of the blood culture samples for intensive care unit (ICU) patients with central lines were drawn through existing lines. A sizable majority of respondents used time to positivity, differential time to positivity when paired blood cultures are used, and quantitative culture of catheter tips when diagnosing CLABSI or determining the source of that bacteremia. When determining whether a bacteremia met the reportable CLABSI definition, a majority used a decision method that involved clinical judgment. Conclusions: Our survey documents a strong preference for drawing 1 set of blood culture samples from a peripheral line and 1 from the central line when evaluating fever in an ICU patient, as recommended by IDSA guidelines and in contrast to current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. Our data show substantial variability when infectious-diseases physicians were asked to determine whether bloodstream infections were primary bacteremias, and therefore subject to public reporting by National Healthcare Safety Network guidelines, or secondary bacteremias, which are not reportable.

AB - Background: The diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) is often controversial, and existing guidelines differ in important ways. Objective: To determine both the range of practices involved in obtaining blood culture samples and how central line-associated infections are diagnosed and to obtain members' opinions regarding the process of designating bloodstream infections as publicly reportable CLABSIs. Design: Electronic and paper 11-question survey of infectious-diseases physician members of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Emerging Infections Network (IDSA EIN). Participants: All 1,364 IDSA EIN members were invited to participate. Results: 692 (51%) members responded; 52% of respondents with adult practices reported that more than half of the blood culture samples for intensive care unit (ICU) patients with central lines were drawn through existing lines. A sizable majority of respondents used time to positivity, differential time to positivity when paired blood cultures are used, and quantitative culture of catheter tips when diagnosing CLABSI or determining the source of that bacteremia. When determining whether a bacteremia met the reportable CLABSI definition, a majority used a decision method that involved clinical judgment. Conclusions: Our survey documents a strong preference for drawing 1 set of blood culture samples from a peripheral line and 1 from the central line when evaluating fever in an ICU patient, as recommended by IDSA guidelines and in contrast to current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. Our data show substantial variability when infectious-diseases physicians were asked to determine whether bloodstream infections were primary bacteremias, and therefore subject to public reporting by National Healthcare Safety Network guidelines, or secondary bacteremias, which are not reportable.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864933653&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864933653&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/667379

DO - 10.1086/667379

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 875

EP - 882

JO - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

JF - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

SN - 0899-823X

IS - 9

ER -