医院感染现患率与回顾性调查结果对照分析

目的通过医院感染现患率调查与同年回顾性调查结果的比较,评价医院感染现患率调查的可靠性。方法分析2010、2011年的现患率调查数据及当年回顾性调查数据,同时进行统计学处理。结果 2010年现患率调查发生医院感染34例,36例次,感染率为2.78%,例次感染率为2.95%,与回顾性调查感染率1.53%和例次感染率1.55%比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);2011年现患率调查感染率为3.52%,例次感染率为3.60%,与回顾性调查感染率1.29%和例次感染率1.30%比较,差异也有统计学意义(P<0.01)。两种调查方法医院感染部位构成均以呼吸道为主,高发科室居第一位的均是综合ICU,医院感染病原学送检率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),且均以G-为主。结论现患率调查省时、省力,能真实地反映医院感染地实际情况,回顾性调查存在漏报,可以通过定期开展现患率调查替代回顾性调查。

Comparative study of prevalence and retrospective study for hospital infection during two years

Objective To evaluate the reliability of the prevalence study by comparing the result about prevalence surveying and retrospective research for nosocomial infections. Methods These two year data measured by prevalence surveying were analyzed. Results The result from 2010 showed that 34 cases acquired infection during hospitalization, with 36 case-times of infection, and there was significant difference about the rate of hospital acquired infection （2.78 vs. 1.53%）. The rate of case-times of infection （2.95% vs. 1.55%）by the prevalence surveying and retrospective re- search （P〈0.01）. The data from 2011 also showed the difference about the rate of hospital acquired infection （3.52 % vs. 1.29%）and the rate of case-times of infection （3.60% vs. 1.30%）by the two investigation methods（P〈0.01）. Two methods showed that the most common infection location was respiratory tract and high-risk department ranks first is comprehensive ICU, and there was no significant difference about the sending rate for the hospital infection pathogens, and the most common pathogens was gram-negative bacteria （G-）. Conclusion Prevalence study is time-saving and la- bor-saving and could reflect the actual situation of the hospital infection, and it could replace the retrospective study regu- larly for the omissive cases.