We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Letters |

Surveillance Quality in Reporting Nosocomial Bloodstream Infection Rates

Matan J. Cohen, MD, MPH; Shmuel Benenson, MD
JAMA. 2011;305(8):779-780. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.157.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


To the Editor: Dr Lin and colleagues1 demonstrated the difficulties in standardizing the report of nosocomial bloodstream infection rates. The focus of the study was the inconsistencies in diagnosis of these infections, inter-institutional variability, and their consequences. How ever, another inherent bias in the current guidelines for the surveillance of central line–associated bloodstream infection (BSI) exists. This bias results from the methods of central line–associated BSI rate estimation, counting events in the numerator and central-line days in the denominator. Units with high counts of central-line days would tend to have lower rates as the denominator increases. The denominator is calculated by summing the number of patients in a unit who have at least 1 central venous catheter each day.2 Infected patients are not excluded. In practice, central venous catheters are not always removed once infection occurs, either because diagnosis of central line–associated BSI has not been established or because alternative venous access is not available. This bias is counterproductive, as one of the basic principles underlying preventive measures taken to decrease central line–associated BSI rates is to shorten the duration of central venous catheter placement.3


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview




February 23, 2011
Michael Y. Lin, MD, MPH; Robert A. Weinstein, MD; William E. Trick, MD
JAMA. 2011;305(8):779-780. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.158.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.