↓ Skip to main content

Beyond the bundle - journey of a tertiary care medical intensive care unit to zerocentral line-associated bloodstream infections

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
35 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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.
Title
Beyond the bundle - journey of a tertiary care medical intensive care unit to zerocentral line-associated bloodstream infections
Published in
Critical Care, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12551
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew C Exline, Naeem A Ali, Nancy Zikri, Julie E Mangino, Kelly Torrence, Brenda Vermillion, Jamie St Clair, Mark E Lustberg, Preeti Pancholi, Madhuri M Sopirala

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We set a goal to reduce the incidence rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections to rate of <1 per 1,000 central line days in a two-year period. METHODS: This is an observational cohort study with historical controls in a 25-bed intensive care unit at a tertiary academic hospital. All patients admitted to the unit from January 2008 to December 2011 (31,931 patient days) were included. A multidisciplinary team consisting of hospital epidemiologist/infectious diseases physician, infection preventionist, unit physician and nursing leadership was convened. Interventions included: central line insertion checklist, demonstration of competencies for line maintenance and access, daily line necessity checklist, and quality rounds by nursing leadership, heightened staff accountability, follow-up surveillance by epidemiology with timely unit feedback and case reviews, and identification of noncompliance with evidence-based guidelines. Molecular epidemiologic investigation of a cluster of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) was undertaken resulting in staff education for proper acquisition of blood cultures, environmental decontamination and daily chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing for patients. RESULTS: Center for Disease Control/National Health Safety Network (CDC/NHSN) definition was used to measure central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLA-BSI) rates during the following time periods: baseline (January 2008 to December 2009), intervention year (IY) 1 (January to December 2010), and IY 2 (January to December 2011). Infection rates were as follows: baseline: 2.65 infections per 1,000 catheter days; IY1: 1.97 per 1,000 catheter days; the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0.74 (95% CI = 0.37 to 1.65, P = 0.398); residual seven CLA-BSIs during IY1 were VRE faecium blood cultures positive from central line alone in the setting of findings explicable by noninfectious conditions. Following staff education, environmental decontamination and CHG bathing (IY2): 0.53 per 1,000 catheter days; the IRR was 0.20 (95% CI = 0.06 to 0.65, P = 0.008) with 80% reduction compared to the baseline. Over the two-year intervention period, the overall rate decreased by 53% to 1.24 per 1,000 catheter-days (IRR of 0.47 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.88, P = 0.019) with zero CLA-BSI for a total of 15 months. CONCLUSIONS: Residual CLA-BSIs, despite strict adherence to central line bundle, may be related to blood culture contamination categorized as CLA-BSIs per CDC/NHSN definition. Efforts to reduce residual CLA-BSIs require a strategic multidisciplinary team approach focused on epidemiologic investigations of practitioner- or unit-specific etiologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 126 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Other 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 37 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 261. 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 25 January 2024.
All research outputs
#139,580
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#57
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#794
of 207,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 207,610 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.