Impact of Targeted Interventions on Trends in Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection: A Single-Center Experience from the Republic of Korea

Sun Young Cho,Doo Ryeon Chung,Jae Geum Ryu,Jong Rim Choi,Nayeon Ahn,Seonwoo Kim,Min-Ji Kim,Young Eun Ha,Cheol-In Kang,Kyong Ran Peck,Jae-Hoon Song
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000002306
IF: 8.8
2017-01-01
Critical Care Medicine
Abstract:Objective: To assess the impact of targeted interventions on trends in central line-associated bloodstream infection. Design: A before-and-after study between January 2013 and September 2014. Setting: Tertiary hospital in the Republic of Korea. Patients: All patients with central-line catheters in the hospital. Interventions: In September 2013, interventions that targeted central line insertion practices were implemented in 10 ICUs, including compliance monitoring with a central line insertion practices bundle and use of an all-inclusive catheter kit. The impact of targeted interventions on trends in central line-associated bloodstream infection was evaluated by segmented autoregression analysis of an interrupted time series. Measurements and Main Results: The average hospital-wide central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in the baseline and intervention periods were 1.84 and 1.56 per 1,000 catheter-days, respectively. During the baseline period, there was an increase of central line-associated bloodstream infection rate of 0.12 per 1,000 catheter-days per month. In the intervention period, there was a decrease of central line-associated bloodstream infection rate of 0.16 per 1,000 catheter-days per month (change in slope, –0.28; 95% CI, –0.37 to –0.19; p < 0.0001). In ICUs, the average central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in the baseline and intervention periods were 1.92 and 1.64 per 1,000 catheter-days, respectively. During the baseline period, there was an increase of central line-associated bloodstream infection rate of 0.18 per 1,000 catheter-days per month in ICUs. After sequential-targeted interventions, there was a decrease of central line-associated bloodstream infection rate of 0.16 per 1,000 catheter-days per month (change in slope, –0.34; 95% CI, –0.50 to –0.18; p = 0.0007). Conclusions: Targeted interventions were associated with significant changes in trends in the occurrence rate of central line-associated bloodstream infection in ICUs and the entire hospital.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?