title: Variations in catheter-related bloodstream infections rates based on local practices.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) surveillance serves as a quality improvement measure that is often used to assess performance. We reviewed the total number of microbiological samples collected in three Belgian intensive care units (ICU) in 2009-2010, and we described variations in CRBSI rates based on two factors: microbiological documentation rate and CRBSI definition which includes clinical criterion for coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CNS) episode.
  
  
  RESULTS
  CRBSI rates were 2.95, 1.13 and 1.26 per 1,000 estimated catheter-days in ICUs A, B and C, respectively. ICU B cultured fewer microbiological samples and reported the lowest CRBSI rate. ICU C had the highest documentation rate but was assisted by support available from the laboratory for processing single CNS positive blood cultures. With the exclusion of clinical criterion, CRBSI rates would be reduced by 19%, 45% and 0% in ICUs A, B and C, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  CRBSI rates may be biased by differences of blood culture sampling and CRBSI definition. These observations suggest that comparisons of CRBSI rates in different ICUs remain difficult to interpret without knowledge of local practices.
authors.affiliation: Infection Control Unit, Brugmann University Hospital, Place A, Van Gehuchten, 4, Brussels, 1020, Belgium. soraya.cherifi@chu-brugmann.be.
authors.forename: Soraya
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Cherifi
authors.forename: Georges
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Mascart
authors.forename: Anne
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Dediste
authors.forename: Marie
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Hallin
authors.forename: Michèle
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gerard
authors.forename: Marie-Laurence
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Lambert
authors.forename: Baudouin
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Byl
references.citation: Euro Surveill. 2012 May 03;17(18):
references.pmid: 22587957
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008 Sep;29(9):842-6
references.pmid: 18713052
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 1;49(1):1-45
references.pmid: 19489710
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2008 Jun;36(5):309-32
references.pmid: 18538699
references.citation: BMJ. 2012 Sep 21;345:e6377
references.pmid: 23002129
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2010 Oct;38(8):585-95
references.pmid: 20868929
references.citation: Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Jun;11(6):471-81
references.pmid: 21616457
references.citation: Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2010 Dec;11(6):529-34
references.pmid: 20969471
references.citation: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1997 Mar;16(3):203-9
references.pmid: 9131322
references.citation: Anaesthesist. 2011 Oct;60(10):902-7
references.pmid: 21874374
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2009 Jan;71(1):66-73
references.pmid: 18799236
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2009 Oct;37(8):643-8
references.pmid: 19589619
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1977 Jun 9;296(23):1305-9
references.pmid: 323710
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009 Nov;30(11):1045-9
references.pmid: 19803720
references.citation: AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008 Nov 06;:631-5
references.pmid: 18999291
references.citation: Intensive Care Med. 1998 Oct;24(10):1034-9
references.pmid: 9840236
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2004 Dec;32(8):470-85
references.pmid: 15573054