Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Hosp Infect. 2008 Jul;69(3):220-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2008.04.030. Epub 2008 Jun 11.

Validity of electronic surveillance systems: a systematic review.

Author information

1
Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary Health Region, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Abstract

Electronic surveillance that utilises information held in databases is more efficient than conventional infection surveillance methods. Validity is not well-defined, however. We systematically reviewed studies comparing the utility of electronic and conventional surveillance methods. Publications were identified using Medline (1980-2007) and bibliographic review. The sensitivity and specificity of electronic compared with conventional surveillance was reported. Twenty-four studies were included. Six studies reported that nosocomial infections could be detected utilising microbiology data alone with good overall sensitivity (range: 63-91%) and excellent specificity (range: 87 to >99%). Two studies used three laboratory-based algorithms for the detection of infection outbreaks yielding variable utility measures (sensitivity, range: 43-91%; specificity, range: 67-86%). Seven studies using only administrative data including discharge coding (International Classification of Diseases, 9th edn, Clinical Modification) and pharmacy data claimed databases had good sensitivity (range: 59-96%) and excellent specificity (range: 95 to >99%) in detecting nosocomial infections. Six studies combined both laboratory and administrative data for a range of infections, and overall had higher sensitivity (range: 71-94%) but lower specificity (range: 47 to >99%) than with use of either alone. Three studies evaluated community-acquired infections with variable results. Electronic surveillance has moderate to excellent utility compared with conventional methods for nosocomial infections. Future studies are needed to refine electronic algorithms further, especially with community-onset infections.

PMID:
18550211
DOI:
10.1016/j.jhin.2008.04.030
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center