↓ Skip to main content

Rising Stakes for Health Care-Associated Infection Prevention: Implications for the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Rising Stakes for Health Care-Associated Infection Prevention: Implications for the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory
Published in
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2017
DOI 10.1128/jcm.02544-16
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Healthcare associated infection (HAI) rates are subject to public reporting, and are linked to hospital reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The increasing pressure to lower HAI rates comes at a time when advances in the clinical microbiology laboratory (CML) provide more precise and sensitive tests, altering HAI detection in ways that may increase reported HAI rates. I review how changing CML practices can impact HAI rates, and how the financial implications of HAI metrics may produce pressure to change diagnostic testing practices. Finally, I provide suggestions for how to respond to this rapidly changing environment. SCENARIO 1: During an investigation of rising rates of central-line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), the infection prevention program (IPP) notes that some CLABSIs were due to organisms that grew in only one of several blood cultures, and which prior to the institution of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight (MALDI-TOF) for organism identification would have been classified as contaminants. An example included a CLABSI attributed to an unusual species of Actinomyces that previously would have been categorized as a "diphtheroid". Your hospital leadership requests that you either revert to former identification methods or change your reporting in a way that prevents these events from being classified as CLABSIs. SCENARIO 2: Since you changed to a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for Clostridium difficile detection, your positivity rate has increased by over 100%. The rate of hospital-onset C. difficile infection (HO-CDI) has increased similarly. During an investigation of the increase in CDI, you find that many samples positive by NAAT are toxin negative by enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and that many patients with low pretest probability of disease are being tested. However, after an initiative to improve testing practices, your hospital-onset CDI Lab ID-event rate remains high (standardized infection ratio (SIR) >1). Concerned about how this rate will impact the value-based purchasing (VBP) and healthcare-associated condition (HAC) scores, your hospital leadership asks you to consider a change back to EIA for CDI diagnosis. SCENARIO 3: Even after a campaign to reduce your hospital's rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) through a reduction in catheter use and improvement in catheter placement and care, the CAUTI rate remains unacceptably high. Your hospital epidemiologist sets up a meeting with you, to discuss how to reduce the number of urine cultures ordered or performed by the laboratory, as another way to reduce both the CAUTI rate and unnecessary antibiotic use. She is open to almost any idea to reduce culture ordering, from using "reflex testing" (culture only performed when urinalysis reveals evidence for inflammation) to requiring laboratory director approval for every urine culture ordered from catheterized inpatients.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 12 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,008,393
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
#730
of 18,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,105
of 465,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
#15
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 465,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.