Analysis of National Healthcare Safety Network Clostridioides difficile Infection Standardized Infection Ratio by Test Type. (October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Qunna; Benin, Andrea; Guh, Alice; Dudeck, Margaret A.; Allen-Bridson, Katherine; Leaptrot, Denise; McDonald, Lawrence; Pollock, Daniel; Edwards, Jonathan
• Is Part Of: Infection control and hospital epidemiology. Volume 41(2020)Supplement 1
• Page Start: s116
• Page End: s118
• Publication Date: 2020-10
• Subjects: Nosocomial infections -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Health facilities -- Sanitation -- Periodicals; Hospital buildings -- Sanitation -- Periodicals; Cross Infection -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Hospitals -- Periodicals; Infection Control -- Periodicals; 614.44
• DOI: 10.1017/ice.2020.624
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0899-823X

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The NHSN has used positive laboratory tests for surveillance of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) LabID events since 2009. Typically, CDIs are detected using enzyme immunoassays (EIAs), nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), or various test combinations. The NHSN uses a risk-adjusted, standardized infection ratio (SIR) to assess healthcare facility-onset (HO) CDI. Despite including test type in the risk adjustment, some hospital personnel and other stakeholders are concerned that NAAT use is associated with higher SIRs than are EIAs. To investigate this issue, we analyzed NHSN data from acute-care hospitals for July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Methods: Calendar quarters for which CDI test type was reported as NAAT (includes NAAT, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)+NAAT and GDH+EIA followed by NAAT if discrepant) or EIA (includes EIA and GDH+EIA) were selected. HO CDI SIRs were calculated for facility-wide inpatient locations. We conducted the following analyses: (1) Among hospitals that did not switch their test type, we compared the distribution of HO incident rates and SIRs by those reporting NAAT vs EIA. (2) Among hospitals that switched their test type, we selected quarters with a stable switch pattern of 2 consecutive quarters of each of EIA and NAAT (categorized as pattern EIA-to-NAAT or NAAT-to-EIA). Pooled semiannual SIRs for EIA and NAAT were calculated, and a paired t test was used to evaluate the difference of SIRs by switch pattern. Results: Most hospitals did not switch test types (3, 242, 89%), and 2, 872 (89%) reported sufficient data to calculate SIRs, with 2, 444 (85%) using NAAT. The crude pooled HO CDI incidence rates for hospitals using EIA clustered at the lower end of the histogram versus rates for NAAT (Fig. 1). The SIR distributions of both NAAT and EIA overlapped substantially and covered a similar range of SIR values (Fig. 1). Among hospitals with a switch pattern, hospitals were equally likely to have an increase or decrease in their SIR (Fig. 2). The mean SIR difference for the 42 hospitals switching from EIA to NAAT was 0.048 (95% CI, −0.189 to 0.284; P = .688). The mean SIR difference for the 26 hospitals switching from NAAT to EIA was 0.162 (95% CI, −0.048 to 0.371; P = .124). Conclusions: The pattern of SIR distributions of both NAAT and EIA substantiate the soundness of NHSN risk adjustment for CDI test types. Switching test type did not produce a consistent directional pattern in SIR that was statistically significant. Disclosures: None Funding: None