Progress on HAI progress: CDC portals and data

I spent about 2 hours with the new CDC HAI Progress Report – loosen your belt, it’s a big meal!  We probably had mixed perceptions about the recent alert to the 2016 HA progress report. Loads of information and analysis condensed down to a handful of bullets, all pointing to improvements in patient safety! The (very pleasant) surprise to me was that the format and delivery of the report has advanced to digital!! CDC has added the HAI progress report to the existing (and now updated) HAI AR Patient Safety Atlas Portal If you stop reading now – at least click on that link and explore and I will call this blog a success!

This report is several steps forward.  First, it pushes all of us to go to a place where we, being inquisitive minds, can wander and perhaps connect some dots within and between datasets. With the digitalization and visualization provided in the portal, the novice and experienced can more easily access and utilize these data. One can click through four distinct datasets, which now include state-summary statistics HAI infection rates/SIRs, inpatient stewardship activities, outpatient antibiotic prescribing rates, and inpatient antibiotic resistance metrics.

Now – the email alert. This year, well 2016 data, is the first to use the 2015 “re-baseline” efforts.

Unstated, but implied – the re-baseline effort includes the use of MBI (mucosal barrier injury) LCBSI as an event excluded from reported CLABSI rates, exclusion of yeasts (or low colony counts) from CAUTI rates, exclusion of “infection present on admission” for SSI (along with better patient-level risk adjustment), first use of risk adjusted metrics for VAE, and maybe slightly better models using more contemporary data for MRSA and CDI. 

With that said, 2016 performance suggests nationally patients are safer overall compared to the experience of 2015. Other than VAE which decreased by only 2%, everything else declined about 7-10% (I am rounding) compared to 2015. I understand many of the problems with risk adjustment and reporting bias that make these surveillance events poor performance measures for individual hospitals – but on the national level – I think these data do suggest fewer infections (o.k., perhaps some  widespread under-reporting—mixed reports on validation efforts in place).

Next – the overview of the current HAI Progress Report.   Although at first glance it seems the same as the info posted in the emails – CDC is offering more ways to track progress nationally – the number of states showing improvements (or worsening) compared to 2015, as well as the number states currently performing at levels better (or worse) then their 2016 contemporaries: 12 state perform better on at least 3 infection types compared to other states at the same time (2016). Now positive deviance nerds need to learn from these states to help the other states (or perhaps identify accuracy and validation issues at these states). The contemporary juxtaposition of SIRs is new, perhaps confusing (especially with CDC’s arcane explanation on how to interpret this: “SIRs statistically significantly lower than the 2016 national SIR are considered better than the 2016 national SIR”; curious if it ends up being useful to state programs. This year also is the first with more detail on inpatient rehabilitation facilities and long-term acute care facilities. Fewer data mean fewer statistical significant results, but these data are ripe for academic partners to latch onto as they try to partner with ARHQ, CDC, and state-programs to branch out into stewardship and prevention efforts in these types of facilities.

Finally, the portal – access it here.  Use the table view. No graphics to export for HAIs, only for other datasets. My pet peeve is that CDC still refused to list the no. of SSIs reported next to the number of surgical procedures reported to allow a crude attack rate. We still need to go to the technical tables for these values and calculate ourselves (see below). CDC, please stop making us jump through this hoop to be able to use attack rates for other purposes like planning studies, clinical trials, vaccine research! To all researchers and data nerds - the detailed technical tables should be downloaded examined (here), perhaps parsed out to our students and trainees, and used for different purposes that simply a “reporting requirement”.  I know there are many limitations to the accuracy of any one facilities reports and likely aggregate data up to the state or national level. However, as a long time national surveillance nerd all too familiar with the warts and ugliness of surveillance data, they do inform us, approximate the truth, and can help us ask the right questions and target the right populations. The more eyes using these data the more transparent the process will become, more uses of the data will be identified, patient safety should improve, and CDC will become more accountable to update (c’mon, where’s 2015 and 2016 NHSN AR data?! update the portal please!!),  maintain, and advance the public accessibility of useful data in our field.

Left to our own devices

The big news today in healthcare-associated infection (HAI) prevention is the publication of the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) point prevalence survey of HAIs, which includes burden estimates and an update on the epidemiology of HAIs in the US, circa 2011. Simultaneously, CDC released an update on national and state-level progress in HAI prevention. The CDC’s press release provides the bottom line messaging around these data: (1) we’ve made progress, and (2) we still have a long way to go.

One of the most important messages can be found in the abstract of the EIP point prevalence survey paper: 

“Device-associated infections (i.e., central-catheter–associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia), which have traditionally been the focus of programs to prevent health care–associated infections, accounted for 25.6% of such infections.”

The device associated infections (DAIs), particularly CLABSI, are also the HAIs for which the most progress has been made in prevention. Why? Because we have prevention approaches that have been tested and implemented in most US hospitals. A common theme around the remainder of infections (now the great majority of HAIs) is that we have far less understanding about how exactly to prevent them (case in point: non-ventilator associated healthcare-associated pneumonia). 

If we expect to see further substantial reductions in HAIs, we’ll need more funding to support prevention studies for HAIs that aren’t device-associated, and for studies of prevention approaches that address HAIs that are beyond the reach of our rudimentary approaches to DAI prevention (e.g. bloodstream infections sourced to gut or skin in high risk patient populations like burn or bone marrow transplant). 

The assumption that we already know how to prevent most HAIs is patently ridiculous, and over the next few years we will see rates plateau as we gain the maximal benefit from improved hand hygiene and DAI prevention bundles. The next phase of infection prevention will require novel approaches.

HAI Rates are a Red Herring

"Fictional" Hospital CMO: "Why should I care about hand hygiene or environmental cleaning if I have no CLABSI or CAUTI in my hospital?"

Don't take this the wrong way, since I'd never want a patient to develop a CLABSI or VAP, but I think our focus on device infections is actually harming patients in the long run. If we convince ourselves, like that CMO quoted above or QI and patient safety folks, that we can just prevent device infections (never mind define them away) and everything will be fine, we are missing the bigger picture. The bigger picture is antibiotic resistance and I've yet to see any evidence that our antibiograms are improving.

When did hospital epidemiologists forget we were infectious disease physicians?

In September's ICHE Kerri Thom and colleagues in Maryland published a sobering reminder that resistant pathogens are increasing, particularly Gram-negative pathogens. They (COI alert, I'm a co-author) completed an Acinetobacter baumannii prevalence survey of all mechanically ventilated patients in the state of Maryland. They swabbed intubated patients in 40 of 57 hospitals and collected sputum and/or perianal swabs from  92% of all eligible patients in those hospitals.  What they found was staggering.  Fully 34% of patients were colonized or infected with Acinetobacter baumannii with 16% in acute care settings and an astounding 63% in long-term care settings carrying the pathogen. Even more worryingly, many strains were highly drug resistant with 46% of isolates in long-term care described as "extensively drug resistant," meaning there were no effective therapies - polymixin anyone?

Why does this matter?  Resistant pathogens cause untreatable infections and result in terrible situations like patients being removed from organ transplant waiting lists. These pathogens also carry resistance genes and serve as reservoirs for emerging resistance in other pathogens like E. coli. So, while I'm sure these Maryland hospitals all report zero CLABSI or CAUTI, I guarantee that they all have patients infected and dying of Acinetobacter baumannii and other MDR-Gram negative pathogens. Until we make investments in the science behind hand hygiene improvement, environmental cleaning and other methods for transmission prevention and until we invest in antimicrobial discovery, patients will increasingly die of these untreatable infections.

Luckily, when a kidney transplant patient dies of MDR-Acinetobacter sepsis, the hospital CMO can still sleep at night. At least the patient didn't die of a CLABSI.  I'm sure the patient's family will find comfort in that.


red herring image source: misocrazy

2009 AHRQ National Healthcare Quality Report: Getting Worse(r)

AHRQ just published the "2009 National Healthcare Quality Report and National Healthcare Disparities Report" and things don't look too good. Full reports available here. Post-op sepsis or BSI---increased 8%. Post-op catheter-associated UTI---increased 3.6%. And for CLABSI - drum roll----no change. Ouch! Post-op pneumonia down 12%. The New York Times seemed upbeat, calling the problem of these infections "largely solvable."

I'm not sure where these data leave us and perhaps Mike, Dan and Connie will have some comments on this report too. However, I think what these data are telling us is that when you don't fund enough proper studies (and multiple studies) on methods to prevent HAIs - the 6th leading cause of death and when you are mostly left to resort to "absence of evidence-based medicine" tricks like kitchen-sink bundles...well, this is where you end up.

To suggest, as Katherine Sebelius did, that the new health care law would “help turn these numbers around” since hospitals with high rates of infections will be penalized starting in the 2015, is a bit hopeful. I think we haven't invested in HAI prevention studies like we have in cardiology and other areas, and I don't think we're going to get these rates down with sticks alone. You can't see in the dark if you don't know how to make a flashlight or even light a fire.