DOCSLIB.ORG

Impact of Methicillin Resistance on the Outcome of Patients with Bacteremia Caused by Staphylococcus Aureus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Impact of Methicillin Resistance on the Outcome of Patients with Bacteremia Caused by Staphylococcus Aureus ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION Impact of Methicillin Resistance on the Outcome of Patients With Bacteremia Caused by Staphylococcus aureus Stephan Harbarth, MD; Olivier Rutschmann, MD; Philippe Sudre, MD, MS; Didier Pittet, MD, MS Background: Uncertainties remain about the contri- Main Outcome Measure: The in-hospital mortality bution of methicillin resistance to morbidity and mor- after staphylococcal bacteremia. tality associated with bacteremia caused by Staphylococ- cus aureus. Results: In the population-based study, the relative haz- ard of death among patients with MRSA BSI (n=39, 14 Objective: To assess the impact of methicillin resistance deaths, 36% fatality rate) compared with patients with on patient outcome after staphylococcal bacteremia. MSSA BSI (n=145, 40 deaths, 28% fatality rate) was 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.5-2.1), after adjusting for age Methods: We investigated a cohort of 145 patients with and length of stay from admission to the onset of blood- methicillin-sensitive S aureus bloodstream infection stream infection. Following pairwise matching (n=38), (MSSA BSI) and 39 patients with methicillin-resistant the in-hospital mortality was 34% in both groups (odds S aureus bloodstream infection (MRSA BSI) and further ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-2.5). Infection was performed a pairwise-matched (1:1) case-control study. the probable or definite cause of death in 54% of pa- All patients in the University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, tients with MRSA BSI and 69% of patients with MSSA BSI Switzerland, with clinically significant staphylococcal bac- who died. teremia between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1995, were included in the study. For the case-control study, Conclusion: Methicillin resistance in patients with S au- cases were defined as patients with MRSA BSI; control reus bacteremia had no significant impact on patient out- patients with MSSA BSI were selected in a stepwise man- come as measured by in-hospital mortality after adjust- ner according to the following matching variables: age, ment was made for major confounders. sex, number of comorbidities, severity of underlying ill- ness, and prior length of stay in the hospital. Matching was successful for 97% of the cohort. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:182-189 ETHICILLIN-resistant caused by methicillin-sensitive S aureus Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA).14-17 Methicillin-resistant S (MRSA) has become a aureus BSI, in particular, can be associ- worldwide problem, ated with a crude case-fatality rate rang- adding to the overall ing from 10% to almost 60%.3,4,10,18 Nev- Mburden of nosocomial infections.1,2 Blood- ertheless, the real effect on mortality of stream infections (BSIs) due to MRSA may methicillin resistance in staphylococcal account for up to 50% of all staphylococ- bacteremia is still unknown. cal BSI.3-6 Factors predisposing to MRSA Romero-Vivas et al10 showed that BSI include previous antibiotic treat- nosocomial bacteremia due to MRSA was ment, prolonged hospital stay, intravas- associated with a 3-fold higher mortality cular catheters, severe underlying condi- than MSSA BSI after adjustment for sev- tions, and MRSA nasal carriage.6-11 eral risk factors. The authors determined Despite ongoing controversy about that this difference was unaffected by age, the relative virulence of MRSA in vitro the severity of the underlying condition, and in animal models,12,13 most studies the length of hospital stay, preinfection an- From the Infection Control Program, Division of Infectious have concluded that infections due to tibiotic treatment, and previous surgery, Diseases, Department of MRSA are probably similar in virulence, but they hypothesized that it might have Internal Medicine, University as measured by the duration of fever, been related to an inaccurate adjustment Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, infectious complications, length of hos- for the severity of illness and underlying Switzerland. pital stay, and mortality, as infections diseases. ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 158, JAN 26, 1998 182 ©1998 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/27/2021 PATIENTS AND METHODS S aureus within 24 hours and the clinical course was con- sistent with staphylococcal infection. Organisms of S aureus isolated from the bloodstream were considered to SETTING be contaminants if culture of only 1 blood specimen yielded the organism, if the clinicians or the infectious This study was undertaken in the University Hospital of diseases consultant judged the organism to be a contami- Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland, a 1500-bed health care cen- nant, and if antibiotic therapy directed against the organ- ter providing primary and tertiary care for Geneva and the ism was not administered. Bloodstream infection was con- surrounding areas (500 000 inhabitants). About 40 000 pa- sidered community-acquired if the blood specimen for the tients are admitted annually for a mean length of stay of first positive culture was obtained within 72 hours of 10 days. admission or in the presence of S aureus infection at At this center, the incidence rates of MRSA coloniza- another body site at the time of hospital admission.22 An tion or infection increased significantly between 1989 and infection that was neither present nor incubating at the 1995 from 0.05 cases per 100 admissions in 1989 to 0.81 time of admission was considered nosocomial.23 cases per 100 admissions in 1995 (R2=0.94, P,.001).19 Af- ter the implementation of infection control measures in Foci of BSI 1993, the annual attack rate (±SD) of MRSA colonization or infection remained stable: 0.55±0.05 cases per 100 ad- In the case of secondary bacteremia, a primary focus of in- missions (range, 0.51-0.62). fection was determined using the following definitions: The term “pneumonia” was retained for patients with clinical STUDY OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN signs of lower respiratory tract infection associated with ra- diographic evidence of pulmonary infiltrates not attribut- The objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of able to other causes. An intravenous catheter was consid- methicillin resistance on the morbidity and mortality as- ered as the source of BSI if the catheter had been in place sociated with S aureus bacteremia. All patients with clini- for at least 72 hours, culture of a quantitative catheter speci- cally substantial episodes of S aureus bacteremia between men yielded more than 100 colonies of S aureus,24 or cul- January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1995, were included ture of a specimen of purulent drainage from the insertion in a retrospective population-based cohort study. The main site grew S aureus. Endocarditis was considered in pa- outcome measure was the in-hospital mortality after staphy- tients with S aureus bacteremia and 1 or more of the fol- lococcal BSI. In addition, a pairwise-matched (1:1) case- lowing characteristics: surgical or autopsy findings con- control study concerning 38 patients with MSSA and MRSA sistent with endocarditis, echocardiographic evidence of bacteremia was performed to confirm findings from the valvular vegetation, and the presence of septic emboli. Uri- population-based cohort study. nary tract infection was considered if the patient had uri- nary symptoms and S aureus (.105 colony-forming units PATIENT POPULATION per milliliter) was identified as the sole pathogen from urine. Soft tissue infection was considered in the case of a pa- All episodes of MSSA or MRSA bacteremia from January tient who had a pure culture of S aureus from a tissue or 1, 1994, through December 31, 1995, were identified us- drainage specimen from the affected site and signs of in- ing 3 sources of information: (1) database of the comput- fection. “Surgical wound infections” were diagnosed fol- erized clinical microbiology laboratory, (2) prospective sur- lowing the standard definitions from the Centers for Dis- veillance records of patients with nosocomial BSIs from the ease Control and Prevention.25 “Primary bacteremia” defined infection control program, and (3) follow-up data of cases conditions in which no primary focus could be deter- by infectious diseases consultants. When a patient had more mined.26 than 1 episode of S aureus bacteremia or more than 1 hos- pital admission, only the first episode was considered. Pa- In-hospital and Associated Mortality tients younger than 16 years at the time of the onset of in- fection were excluded. In-hospital mortality reflects the mortality of the underly- ing illness and the mortality attributable to BSI.26 The MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS mortality associated with methicillin resistance in staphy- lococcal bacteremia was defined as the difference between Staphylococcus aureus was identified using standard labo- the mortality among case-patients with MRSA BSI and the ratory procedures.19,20 Methicillin resistance was deter- mortality among control patients with MSSA BSI. mined according to methods recommended by the Na- tional Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards for disk Follow-up and Clinical Outcome diffusion testing and the use of an oxacillin (0.85%) agar screening plate.21 Patients were observed from the day of hospitalization un- til hospital discharge or death. Death was attributed defi- DEFINITIONS nitely to staphylococcal BSI in the presence of at least 1 of the following criteria: (1) blood cultures positive for S au- Bloodstream Infection reus at the time of death; (2) a persistent focus of staphy- lococcal infection associated with clinical signs of sepsis Patients were considered to have staphylococcal BSI if cultures of 2 or more blood specimens were positive for Continued on next page ARCH INTERN MED/ VOL 158, JAN 26, 1998 183 ©1998 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/27/2021 such as fever, leukocytosis, or hypotension; (3) death system similar to described methods.34,35 Control patients within 14 days of the documentation of BSI without with staphylococcal bacteremia during a previous hospi- another explanation; or (4) autopsy findings indicating tal stay were excluded.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Impact of Blinding on Estimated Treatment Effects in Randomised Clinical Trials
    RESEARCH Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6802 on 21 January 2020. Downloaded from clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study Helene Moustgaard,1-4 Gemma L Clayton,5 Hayley E Jones,5 Isabelle Boutron,6 Lars Jørgensen,4 David R T Laursen,1-4 Mette F Olsen,4 Asger Paludan-Müller,4 Philippe Ravaud,6 5,7 5,7,8 5,7 1-3 Jelena Savović, , Jonathan A C Sterne, Julian P T Higgins, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson For numbered affiliations see ABSTRACT 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials end of the article. OBJECTIVES without blinding. Correspondence to: To study the impact of blinding on estimated RESULTS H Moustgaard treatment effects, and their variation between [email protected] The study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). (or @HeleneMoustgaa1 on Twitter trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 ORCID 0000-0002-7057-5251) healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta- Additional material is published and performance bias; and types of outcome (the analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 online only. To view please visit MetaBLIND study). the journal online. (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes C ite this as: BMJ 2020;368:l6802 DESIGN reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6802 Meta-epidemiological study. blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to Accepted: 19 November 2019 DATA SOURCE 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14).
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Validated Instruments
    Development of Validated Instruments Michelle Tarver, MD, PhD Medical Officer Division of Ophthalmic and Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Center for Devices and Radiological Health Food and Drug Administration No Financial Conflicts to Disclose 2 Overview • Define Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) • Factors to Consider when Developing PROs • FDA Guidance for PROs • Use of PROs in FDA Clinical Trials 3 Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) • Any report of the status of a patient’s health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician or anyone else • Can be measured in absolute terms (e.g., severity of a symptom) or as a change from a previous measure • In trials, measures the effect of a medical intervention on one or more concepts – Concept is the thing being measured (e.g., symptom, effects on function, severity of health condition) 4 Concepts a PRO May Capture • Symptoms • Symptom impact and functioning • Disability/handicap • Adverse events • Treatment tolerability • Treatment satisfaction • Health-related quality of life 5 Criteria to Consider in PRO Development • Appropriateness – Does the content address the relevant questions for the device? • Acceptability – Is the questionnaire acceptable to patients? • Feasibility – Is it easy to administer and process/analyze? • Interpretability – Are the scores interpretable? Abstracted from (1) Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Group: University of Oxford (2) NIH PROMIS Instrument Development and Validation Standards 6 Criteria
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Person-Centered Conceptual Model of Perceived Fatigability
    Quality of Life Research (2019) 28:1337–1347 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2093-z Development of a person-centered conceptual model of perceived fatigability Anna L. Kratz1 · Susan L. Murphy2 · Tiffany J. Braley3 · Neil Basu4 · Shubhangi Kulkarni1 · Jenna Russell1 · Noelle E. Carlozzi1 Accepted: 17 December 2018 / Published online: 2 January 2019 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 Abstract Purpose Perceived fatigability, reflective of changes in fatigue intensity in the context of activity, has emerged as a poten- tially important clinical outcome and quality of life indicator. Unfortunately, the nature of perceived fatigability is not well characterized. The aim of this study is to define the characteristics of fatigability through the development of a conceptual model informed by input from key stakeholders who experience fatigability, including the general population, individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), and individuals with fibromyalgia (FM). Methods Thirteen focus groups were conducted with 101 participants; five groups with n = 44 individuals representing the general population, four groups with n = 26 individuals with MS, and four groups with n = 31 individuals with FM. Focus group data were qualitatively analyzed to identify major themes in the participants’ characterizations of perceived fatigability. Results Seven major themes were identified: general fatigability, physical fatigability, mental fatigability, emotional fati- gability, moderators of fatigability, proactive and reactive behaviors, and temporal aspects of fatigability. Relative to those in the general sample, FM or MS groups more often described experiencing fatigue as a result of cognitive activity, use of proactive behaviors to manage fatigability, and sensory stimulation as exacerbating fatigability. Conclusions Fatigability is the complex and dynamic process of the development of physical, mental, and/or emotional fatigue.
    [Show full text]
  • (EPOC) Data Collection Checklist
    Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group DATA COLLECTION CHECKLIST Page 2 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group (EPOC) Data Collection Checklist CONTENTS Item Page Introduction 5-6 1 Inclusion criteria* 7-8 1.1 Study design* 7 1.1.1 Randomised controlled trial* 1.1.2 Controlled clinical trial* 1.1.3 Controlled before and after study* 1.1.4 Interrupted time series* 1.2 Methodological inclusion criteria* 8 2 Interventions* 9-12 2.1 Type of intervention 9 2.1.1 Professional interventions* 9 2.1.2 Financial interventions* 10 2.1.2.1 Provider interventions* 2.1.2.2 Patient interventions* 2.1.3 Organisational interventions* 11 2.1.3.1 Provider orientated interventions* 2.1.3.2 Patient orientated interventions* 2.1.3.3 Structural interventions* 2.1.4 Regulatory interventions* 12 2.2 Controls* 13 3 Type of targeted behaviour* 13 4 Participants* 14-15 4.1 Characteristics of participating providers* 14 4.1.1 Profession* Item Page Page 3 4.1.2 Level of training* 4.1.3 Clinical speciality* 4.1.4 Age 4.1.5 Time since graduation 4.2 Characteristics of participating patients* 15 4.2.1 Clinical problem* 4.2.2 Other patient characteristics 4.2.3 Number of patients included in the study* 5 Setting* 16 5.1 Reimbursement system 5.2 Location of care* 5.3 Academic Status* 5.4 Country* 5.5 Proportion of eligible providers from the sampling frame* 6 Methods* 17 6.1 Unit of allocation* 6.2 Unit of analysis* 6.3 Power calculation* 6.4 Quality criteria* 17-22 6.4.1 Quality criteria for randomised controlled trials
    [Show full text]
  • Meta-Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Data Synthesis
    Department of Health Sciences M.Sc. in Evidence Based Practice, M.Sc. in Health Services Research Meta-analysis: methods for quantitative data synthesis What is a meta-analysis? Meta-analysis is a statistical technique, or set of statistical techniques, for summarising the results of several studies into a single estimate. Many systematic reviews include a meta-analysis, but not all. Meta-analysis takes data from several different studies and produces a single estimate of the effect, usually of a treatment or risk factor. We improve the precision of an estimate by making use of all available data. The Greek root ‘meta’ means ‘with’, ‘along’, ‘after’, or ‘later’, so here we have an analysis after the original analysis has been done. Boring pedants think that ‘metanalysis’ would have been a better word, and more euphonious, but we boring pedants can’t have everything. For us to do a meta-analysis, we must have more than one study which has estimated the effect of an intervention or of a risk factor. The participants, interventions or risk factors, and settings in which the studies were carried out need to be sufficiently similar for us to say that there is something in common for us to investigate. We would not do a meta-analysis of two studies, one of which was in adults and the other in children, for example. We must make a judgement that the studies do not differ in ways which are likely to affect the outcome substantially. We need outcome variables in the different studies which we can somehow get in to a common format, so that they can be combined.
    [Show full text]
  • A Minimal Common Outcome Measure Set for COVID-19 Clinical Research
    A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research Marshall, J. C., Murthy, S., Diaz, J., Adhikari, N., Angus, D. C., Arabi, Y. M., Baillie, K., Bauer, M., Berry, S., Blackwood, B., Bonten, M., Bozza, F., Brunkhorst, F., Cheng, A., Clarke, M., Dat, V. Q., de Jong, M., Denholm, J., Derde, L., ... Zhang, J. (2020). A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30483-7 Published in: The Lancet Infectious Diseases Document Version: Peer reviewed version Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. This manuscript is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits distribution and reproduction for non-commercial purposes, provided the author and source are cited. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting and Understanding Meta-Analysis Graphs – a Practical Guide
    PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE Interpreting and understanding Research meta-analysis graphs A practical guide Karin Ried PhD, MSc, GDPH, is Research Fellow & PHCRED Program Manager, Discipline of General Ideally, clinical decision making ought to be based meta-analysis before diving into the fine points of the Practice, The University of on the latest evidence available. However, to keep meta-analysis results and drawing conclusions on patient Adelaide, South Australia. abreast with the continuously increasing number of treatment. Table 1 can guide the assessment. [email protected] publications in health research, a primary health care Meta-analysis graphs professional would need to read an unsurmountable number of articles every day covered in more than 13 Meta-analysis results are commonly displayed graphically million references and over 4800 biomedical and health as ‘forest plots’. Figures 1 and 2 give examples of meta- journals in Medline alone.1 With the view to address analysis graphs. Figure 1 illustrates a graph with a binary this challenge, the systematic review method was outcome variable whereas Figure 2 depicts a forest plot developed.2 This article provides a practical guide for with a continuous outcome variable. Some features of appraising systematic reviews for relevance to clinical meta-analyses using binary and continuous variables and practice and interpreting meta-analysis graphs as part outcome measures are compared in Table 2. of quantitative systematic reviews. The majority of meta-analyses combine data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which compare the A systematic review is a synthesis of primary research outcomes between an intervention group and a control studies investigating a clearly formulated clinical question group.
    [Show full text]
  • Outcome and Process Performance Measures Outcome Measures  Outcome Measure Data Are Collected to Measure the Rate of CLABSI in a Patient Population
    Outcome and Process Performance Measures Outcome Measures Outcome measure data are collected to measure the rate of CLABSI in a patient population. Measure Calculation Description/Notes number of CLABSI cases in each unit assessed Note that central line–days, not patient-days, are used as the denominator, as only patients with a _____________________ x 1,000 central line are at risk of developing a CLABSI.1 The NHSN methodology also stipulates that no matter CLABSI rate per 1,000 central 2 line-days* how many central lines or lumens each patient has, each patient is counted as one catheter-day. total number of central line– days in each unit assessed Process Measures Process measures assess adherence to recommended practices to prevent CLABSIs. Process measures are all multiplied by 100 so that they are expressed as percentages. The target adherence rate is 100%.3 4 Process measures to consider, ranked in order of priority from highest to lowest, include the following : Measure Calculation Description/Notes Adherence to all elements of the number of CVC insertions in Assessed by reviewing the documentation on the insertion checklist CVC Insertion Checklist which all 3 interventions are (appropriate hand hygiene performed at CVC insertion (Note that, in parts of the world where chlorhexidine may not be available for use, the same methodology would performed, maximal sterile barrier ______________________ x 100 apply to measuring the use of other skin antiseptics.) precautions used, chlorhexidine skin antisepsis used) number of CVC
    [Show full text]
  • Meta-Analysis
    How to cite this document: Ryan R; Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group. ‘Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group: meta-analysis. http://cccrg.cochrane.org, December 2016 (accessed DATE). Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group reviews: Meta-analysis • See the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Chapters 9, 11 and 12. For many Cochrane Consumers and Communication (CCC) reviews, narrative (descriptive) synthesis is the only appropriate approach to data synthesis. Narrative synthesis will therefore always be part of the results section. If authors also decide to perform meta- analysis, it needs to be clearly justified. Whether the data is analysed using meta-analysis or through narrative synthesis, the analysis should consider each of the following questions: • What is the direction of effect (positive, negative, unclear)? • What is the size of the effect? • Is the effect consistent across studies? • What is the strength of evidence (quality or certainty) for the effect? Unless the meta-analysis is properly planned, and appropriate both to the review question and to the characteristics of the included studies, it may not produce useful or meaningful results. Worse, if poorly planned or executed, meta-analysis may produce seriously misleading results. What is meta-analysis? • See the Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9, especially section 9.1. Meta-analysis is a statistical method for pooling the results of several studies reporting the same outcome, in order to gain a better estimate of the effect size of an intervention. By converting the outcomes of different studies to a common measurement such as effect size, then means and proportions can be averaged across studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI)
    National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Catheter-associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) Outcome Measure NQF #: 0754 Developer: National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Measure Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Steward: Data Source: CMS Hospital Compare Description: Standardized Infection Ratio (SIR) of healthcare-associated, catheter- associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) will be calculated among patients in the following patient care locations: • Intensive Care Units (ICUs) (excluding patients in neonatal ICUs [NICUs: Level II/III and Level III nurseries]) • Specialty Care Areas (SCAs) - adult and pediatric: long term acute care, bone marrow transplant, acute dialysis, hematology/oncology, and solid organ transplant locations • other inpatient locations (excluding Level I and Level II nurseries). • Data from these locations are reported from acute care general hospitals (including specialty hospitals), freestanding long term acute care hospitals, rehabilitation hospitals, and behavioral health hospitals. This scope of coverage includes but is not limited to all Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs), both freestanding and located as a separate unit within an acute care general hospital. Only locations where patients reside overnight are included, i.e., inpatient locations. Rationale: CAUTI is the most common type of healthcare-associated infection, accounting for more than 30% of acute care hospital infections. 13,000 deaths are associated with UTIs each year. There are estimated to be 449,334 CAUTI events per year. Each CAUTI is associated with the medical cost of $758. And, a total of over $340 million spent in health care is attributable to the incident of CAUTI in the U.S. each year. CAUTI rates vary considerably when stratified by location type and in some instances, by location bed size and type of medical school affiliation of the facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Outcome Definition and Measurement
    Chapter 6. Outcome Definition and Measurement Priscilla Velentgas, Ph.D. Quintiles Outcome, Cambridge, MA Nancy A. Dreyer, M.P.H., Ph.D. Quintiles Outcome, Cambridge, MA Albert W. Wu, M.D., M.P.H. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD Abstract This chapter provides an overview of considerations for the development of outcome measures for observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) studies, describes implications of the proposed outcomes for study design, and enumerates issues of bias that may arise in incorporating the ascertainment of outcomes into observational research, and means of evaluating, preventing and/or reducing these biases. Development of clear and objective outcome definitions that correspond to the nature of the hypothesized treatment effect and address the research questions of interest, along with validation of outcomes or use of standardized patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments validated for the population of interest, contribute to the internal validity of observational CER studies. Attention to collection of outcome data in an equivalent manner across treatment comparison groups is also required. Use of appropriate analytic methods suitable to the outcome measure and sensitivity analysis to address varying definitions of at least the primary study outcomes are needed to draw robust and reliable inferences. The chapter concludes with a checklist of guidance and key considerations for outcome 71 determination and definitions for observational CER protocols. Introduction The
    [Show full text]
  • Outcome Measures Validated for Use in Stroke Rehabilitation
    Outcome measures validated for use in stroke rehabilitation in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Nabila Schoonraad Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Physiotherapy in the Faculty of Medicine and Health Science at Stellenbosch University Division of Physiotherapy Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Stellenbosch University Supervisor: Prof QA Louw Co-supervisor: Mrs G Inglis-Jassiem March 2020 i Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Signature: Nabila Schoonraad Date: March 2020 Copyright © 2020 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved ii Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract Introduction: The use of outcome measures necessary for effective clinical practice and in order to obtain reliable results in research. The commonly used outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation was developed in well-resourced high-income countries. When these outcome measures are used in a different setting, such as in low- and middle-income countries, it may require translation, cross-cultural adaptation and an evaluation of its measurement properties. Objective: Review the current literature reporting on outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation that were validated for use in low- and middle-income countries.
    [Show full text]