1. Do we need to change catheter-related bloodstream infection surveillance in the Netherlands? A qualitative study among infection prevention professionals
- Author
-
Janneke D M Verberk, Lennie P. G. Derde, Maaike S. M. van Mourik, Marc J. M. Bonten, Tjallie van der Kooi, and Sabine C. de Greeff
- Subjects
Catheters ,audit ,Audit ,health & safety ,quality in health care ,Nursing ,Sepsis ,Medicine ,Infection control ,Humans ,adult intensive & critical care ,Qualitative Research ,Netherlands ,Protocol (science) ,business.industry ,Construct validity ,Reproducibility of Results ,Workload ,General Medicine ,Focus group ,infection control ,Catheter-Related Infections ,epidemiology ,business ,Qualitative research ,Infection Control Practitioners - Abstract
ObjectivesCatheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are a common healthcare-associated infection and therefore targeted by surveillance programmes in many countries. Concerns, however, have been voiced regarding the reliability and construct validity of CRBSI surveillance and the connection with the current diagnostic procedures. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of infection control practitioners (ICPs) and medical professionals with the current CRBSI surveillance in the Netherlands and their suggestions for improvement.DesignQualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) with ICPs and medical professionals separately, followed by semistructured interviews to investigate whether the points raised in the FGDs were recognised and confirmed by the interviewees. Analyses were performed using thematic analyses.SettingBasic, teaching and academic hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants24 ICPs and 9 medical professionals.ResultsMain themes derived from experiences with current surveillance were (1) ICPs’ doubt regarding the yield of surveillance given the low incidence of CRBSI, the high workload and IT problems; (2) the experienced lack of leadership and responsibility for recording information needed for surveillance and (3) difficulties with applying and interpreting the CRBSI definition. Suggestions were made to simplify the surveillance protocol, expand the follow-up and surveillance to homecare settings, simplify the definition and customise it for specific patient groups. Participants reported hoping for and counting on automatisation solutions to support future surveillance.ConclusionsThis study reveals several problems with the feasibility and acceptance of the current CRBSI surveillance and proposes several suggestions for improvement. This provides valuable input for future surveillance activities, thereby taking into account automation possibilities.
- Published
- 2021