Publication

Development and evaluation of a structured guide to assess the preventability of hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia

Downloadable Content

Persistent URL
Last modified
  • 09/18/2025
Type of Material
Authors
    Gregory M Schrank, University of Maryland BaltimoreAnna Sick-Samuels, Johns Hopkins UniversitySusan C Bleasdale, University of Illinois at ChicagoJesse Jacob, Emory UniversityRaymund Dantes, Emory UniversityRuna H Gokhale, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AtlantaJeanmarie Mayer, University of UtahPreeti Mehrotra, Harvard Medical SchoolSapna A Mehta, NYU Grossman School of MedicineAlfredo Mena J Lora, University of Illinois at ChicagoSusan Ray, Emory UniversityChanu Rhee, Harvard Medical SchoolJorge L Salinas, University of Iowa Hospital & ClinicsSusan K Seo, Joan and Sanford Weil Cornell Medical CollegeAndi L Shane, Emory UniversityGita Nadimpalli, University of Maryland, BaltimoreAaron M Milstone, Johns Hopkins UniversityGwen Robinson, University of Maryland, BaltimoreClayton H Brown, University of Maryland, BaltimoreAnthony D Harris, University of Maryland, BaltimoreSurbhi Leekha, University of Maryland, Baltimore
Language
  • English
Date
  • 2022-01-28
Publisher
  • CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
Publication Version
Copyright Statement
  • © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
License
Final Published Version (URL)
Title of Journal or Parent Work
Volume
  • 43
Issue
  • 10
Start Page
  • 1326
End Page
  • 1332
Grant/Funding Information
  • This work was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epicenters Program (U01CK000556-01). S.K.S. is supported in part by the NIH/NCI Cancer Center support grant (P30 CA008748).
Supplemental Material (URL)
Abstract
  • Objective: To assess preventability of hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia (HOB), we developed and evaluated a structured rating guide accounting for intrinsic patient and extrinsic healthcare-related risks. Design: HOB preventability rating guide was compared against a reference standard expert panel. Participants: A 10-member panel of clinical experts was assembled as the standard of preventability assessment, and 2 physician reviewers applied the rating guide for comparison. Methods: The expert panel independently rated 82 hypothetical HOB scenarios using a 6-point Likert scale collapsed into 3 categories: preventable, uncertain, or not preventable. Consensus was defined as concurrence on the same category among ≥70% experts. Scenarios without consensus were deliberated and followed by a second round of rating. Two reviewers independently applied the rating guide to adjudicate the same 82 scenarios in 2 rounds, with interim revisions. Interrater reliability was evaluated using the κ (kappa) statistic. Results: Expert panel consensus criteria were met for 52 scenarios (63%) after 2 rounds. After 2 rounds, guide-based rating matched expert panel consensus in 40 of 52 (77%) and 39 of 52 (75%) cases for reviewers 1 and 2, respectively. Agreement rates between the 2 reviewers were 84% overall (κ, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.88]) and 87% (κ, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94) for the 52 scenarios with expert consensus. Conclusions: Preventability ratings of HOB scenarios by 2 reviewers using a rating guide matched expert consensus in most cases with moderately high interreviewer reliability. Although diversity of expert opinions and uncertainty of preventability merit further exploration, this is a step toward standardized assessment of HOB preventability.
Author Notes
  • Gregory Schrank, 22 S. Greene St., T3N30, Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 410-328-3656, Fax: 410-328-6826.
Keywords

Tools

Relations

In Collection:

Items