QUALITY IMPROVEMENT REPORT
Using real time process measurements to reduce catheter
related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit
R J Wall, E W Ely, T A Elasy, R S Dittus, J Foss, K S Wilkerson, T Speroff
See end of article for
Dr R J Wall, Division of
Pulmonary and Critical
Care Medicine, University
of Washington, Box
359762, 325 Ninth
Avenue, Seattle, WA
Accepted for publication
27 May 2005
Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:295–302. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.013516
Problem: Measuring a process of care in real time is essential for continuous quality improvement (CQI).
Our inability to measure the process of central venous catheter (CVC) care in real time prevented CQI
efforts aimed at reducing catheter related bloodstream infections (CR-BSIs) from these devices.
Design: A system was developed for measuring the process of CVC care in real time. We used these new
process measurements to continuously monitor the system, guide CQI activities, and deliver performance
feedback to providers.
Setting: Adult medical intensive care unit (MICU).
Key measures for improvement: Measured process of CVC care in real time; CR-BSI rate and time
between CR-BSI events; and performance feedback to staff.
Strategies for change: An interdisciplinary team developed a standardized, user friendly nursing checklist
for CVC insertion. Infection control practitioners scanned the completed checklists into a computerized
database, thereby generating real time measurements for the process of CVC insertion. Armed with these
new process measurements, the team optimized the impact of a multifaceted intervention aimed at
Effects of change: The new checklist immediately provided real time measurements for the process of CVC
insertion. These process measures allowed the team to directly monitor adherence to evidence-based
guidelines. Through continuous process measurement, the team successfully overcame barriers to change,
reduced the CR-BSI rate, and improved patient safety. Two years after the introduction of the checklist the
CR-BSI rate remained at a historic low.
Lessons learnt: Measuring the process of CVC care in real time is feasible in the ICU. When trying to
improve care, real time process measurements are an excellent tool for overcoming barriers to change and
enhancing the sustainability of efforts. To continually improve patient safety, healthcare organizations
should continually measure their key clinical processes in real time.
indwelling CVC at any given time.1CVCs expose patients to
increased risk of infection, and up to 80 000 catheter related
bloodstream infections (CR-BSIs) occur in ICUs in the US
each year.2At a cost of $34 500–56 000 per episode3 4and
with a crude mortality rate that may approach 35%,5
management of CR-BSIs remains an important issue for
patient safety and cost of care.
Experts advocate a broad preventive approach as the
key strategy for CR-BSI reduction,2and preventive inter-
ventions achieve impressive results.6–10However, sustaining
the effect of an intervention after cessation of a study is
difficult because multiple complex processes cause BSIs.
Organizations that monitor CR-BSI rates alone (the ‘‘term-
inal’’ outcome) find troubleshooting a failing system
after CR-BSI rates have already increased to be com-
plicated and time consuming. A better strategy involves
monitoring the processes that ultimately lead to the adverse
Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methodologies
provide an ideal framework for initiating and sustaining
improvements in complex systems.11By definition, CQI
engages front line staff in cycles of iterative problem solving,
with decision making based on real time process measure-
ments.12 13Through the systematic measurement of key
processes that lead to clinical outcomes, CQI allows an
organization to maximize improvement efforts and sustain
entral venous catheters (CVCs) are indispensable in the
management of critically ill patients, and half of all
intensive care unit (ICU) patients in the US have an
On 1 November 2002 we initiated a patient safety project
aimed at reducing CR-BSIs in the medical intensive care unit
(MICU) of a 640 bed tertiary university teaching hospital.
Approximately 600 patients are admitted to the 14 bed unit
each year with a variety of illnesses including acute
respiratory distress syndrome, asthma, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, respiratory failure, pneumonia, sepsis,
poisoning, drug overdose, and gastrointestinal bleeding. The
MICU also cares for critically ill solid organ and bone marrow
transplant patients. All patients undergoing CVC insertion
during their stay in the MICU were eligible for participation.
The hospital’s institutional review board approved the study
OUTLINE OF PROBLEM
For many years our busy MICU struggled with CR-BSIs. In
2002 the CR-BSI rate was 44% higher than the national
median of 5.2 per 1000 catheter-days. Like many hospitals,
we had historically focused on infection surveillance and staff
education. However, we recognized that more innovative
strategies were needed to tackle this ongoing complex
problem. The impressive utility of CQI in other healthcare
settings,14–18coupled with successful reports from other high
risk industries, encouraged us to consider a CQI approach.
Abbreviations: CR-BSI, catheter related bloodstream infection; CQI,
continuous quality improvement; CVC, central venous catheter; MICU,
medical intensive care unit
Although our infection control practitioners tracked the
number of CVCs (inputs) and the number of CR-BSI
(outputs), process measurements for the series of steps that
changed those inputs into outputs were not routinely
collected (fig 1). Before undertaking CQI we first needed a
systematic method for measuring the process of CVC care in
KEY MEASURES FOR IMPROVEMENT
Our primary goal was to show that real time measurement of
CVC care was feasible in the MICU. We anticipated these new
process measurements would guide CQI efforts and thereby
lead to a reduced CR-BSI rate. To increase staff appreciation
of the link between process measures and clinical outcomes,
we fed these bundled data back to providers.
STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE
We assembled a voluntary interdisciplinary team with at least
one MICU leader, infectious disease expert, front line staff
member, and quality improvement expert (fig 2). The team’s
goal was to develop a system for measuring the process of
CVC care in real time with the understanding that this
information would guide future improvement activities
aimed at reducing infections. The team compiled a list of
risk factors by reviewing the published literature on CR-BSIs,
and then classified these risk factors depending on whether
they occurred during insertion or daily maintenance (table 1).
When deciding where to focus their initial efforts, the team
selected CVC insertion as a high leverage starting point.20
Several issues guided this decision: (1) most CVCs in the
MICU were inserted by trainees and there was a high
likelihood of practice variability; (2) there was strong
evidence linking certain insertion behaviors with CR-BSIs;
and (3) CVC insertion was easily defined and amenable to
Identifying barriers to and facilitators of change
A trained research nurse randomly observed five CVC
insertions in the ICU over several days, collected data about
compliance with evidence-based insertion behaviors, and
identified potential barriers to and facilitators of change.21
After studying the local workflow, soliciting clinician input,
and mapping the process of CVC care,22the team established
priority areas for measurement. These areas included
provider education,23trainee supervision,24insertion site,25–27
hand hygiene,28skin antisepsis,29and use of maximal sterile
To capture the desired process measures, the team developed
a new standardized nursing checklist for CVC insertion
(available online31). While studying the local workflow,
the team noted that nurses handwrote a brief care note
after CVC insertions. By including the essential elements
from these nursing notes in the new checklist, the team
eliminated any need for the handwritten notes. The new
document employed check boxes and could be completed in
The new checklist recorded whether providers washed
their hands, used maximal sterile barriers, maintained a
sterile field, and were properly supervised. Although the
measurement of these items was essential for process
improvement, risk management did not believe these
sensitive items belonged in the permanent medical record.
To address this issue the team created a double paged
carbonless document. The sensitive items were intentionally
blacked out and unreadable on the second page.
Upon completing the checklist, the nurse detached the top
page (with all items readable) and dropped it in a secure
lockbox. The second page remained on the patient’s chart
with the sensitive items blacked out. The infection control
practitioners collected the checklists daily and scanned the
de-identified forms into a pre-established computerized
(Minneapolis, MN). Using a standard image scanner, this
application scanned pre-established fields on the checklist
and imported the information into a spreadsheet database.
These data were stored on a secure computer at the Center for
Clinical Improvement for future statistical analyses.
The checklist was initially pilot tested for 1 week with two
senior MICU nurses. They commented on readability of
items, missed opportunities for measurement, and overall
functionality of the checklist. We subsequently added,
modified, or deleted several items based upon their input.
After achieving a suitable final version, the checklist was
introduced to all nursing staff and implemented throughout
the entire MICU.
??????? ?? ??? ????
care. BSI, bloodstream infection.
Flow diagram for the process of central venous catheter (CVC)
Chief Hospital Epidemiologist
Infection Control Practitioners
Infectious Disease Experts
Center for Clinical Improvement*
National Quality Scholars†
a group of improvement experts at Vanderbilt University Medical Center
whose primary aim is to foster patient safety and improve the quality of
health care. The group engages in various activities including education
of caregivers and the advancement of improvement science. ?The
National Quality Scholars is a post-residency fellowship funded by the
Veterans Health Administration. Its primary aim is to equip physicians
with the skills necessary for a career focused on the scholarship,
research, and teaching of healthcare improvement.19
Interdisciplinary team. *The Center for Clinical Improvement is
catheter (CVC) related infections
Factors impacting on central venous
CVC insertionCVC maintenance
Maximal sterile barriers
Number of needle sticks
Insertion site care
Dressing and gauze changes
Specialized line care teams
296Wall, Ely, Elasy, et al
OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: BLOODSTREAM
Our hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control section uses
the definition for primary CR-BSI outlined by the Centers for
Infections Surveillance System (NNIS).2Laboratory con-
firmed bacteremia (or fungemia) is attributed to a patient
with a CVC if they have been in the ICU for at least 48 hours,
provided the infection is not related to another distal source.
Patients with a CVC who develop a BSI within 48 hours of
ICU discharge also have CR-BSI.
Definitions for checklist items
Proper hand hygiene before insertion reduces CR-BSIs.28
Since alcohol based hand rubs are more efficacious than
soap and water,32we gave credit if either behavior was
Studies suggest that there is an increased risk for infection
when inexperienced providers insert CVCs.24Since house
staff insert most CVCs in our MICU, the checklist included
whether the proceduralist was properly supervised. Based on
guidelines established by the American Board of Internal
Medicine,33we considered trainees ‘‘supervised’’ if they had
previously performed five CVC insertions or if another
provider with experience of at least five CVC insertions
supervised them during the procedure. In most cases the
nurse directly inquired regarding the proceduralist’s experi-
ence. If the nurse was unable (or unwilling) to obtain this
information, the checklist included an option ‘‘didn’t ask.’’
Maximal sterile barriers
Studies show the importance of maximal sterile barriers
(gloves, gown, mask, patient drape) during CVC insertions.30
The checklist recorded which individual barriers were used
during the procedure. We defined ‘‘maximal sterile barriers’’
as the simultaneous use of all four component barriers.
Chlorhexidine skin preparation
Skin antisepsis with a 2% chlorhexidine preparation is
superior to povidone-iodine and alcohol for reducing CR-
BSIs.29We gave credit for chlorhexidine whenever it was
employed, even if other agents were also used.
Circumstances of CVC insertion
Providers may skip infection reducing steps during emer-
gency procedures. We considered a CVC insertion ‘‘emergent’’
if a life threatening situation mandated the procedure
immediately. Otherwise, the procedure was considered
‘‘elective’’. To simplify classification, the checklist intention-
ally avoided the ‘‘urgent’’ parlance.
Although the checklist was developed as a measurement tool,
its use during CVC insertions also made the checklist an
important intervention. In fact, clinical reminders at the
point of care are one of the most effective strategies for
affecting daily practice.34Since multifaceted interventions are
more likely to alter physician behavior than single interven-
tions,35the team simultaneously implemented other inter-
vention components aimed at reducing CR-BSIs. These
included provider education, continuous audit, and perfor-
Based on the successes of previous educational efforts,8–10the
team constructed a web based tutorial discussing catheter
related infections.31In addition to describing the new
checklist, the tutorial explained the scientific evidence for
recommended behaviors. The website recorded whether each
provider completeda self-assessment
Leadership announced a new policy requiring annual CVC
education for all MICU providers. A letter was sent to house
staff asking them to independently complete the tutorial
before their MICU rotation. A similar letter was sent to
nursing staff explaining that the tutorial would be incorpo-
rated into their annual competencies curriculum. A repeat
letter was sent 3 months later to providers who had not
fulfilled the requirement. If individuals still did not complete
the tutorial, the MICU leadership approached them privately.
Audit and feedback
A premise of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System
(NNIS) is that constantly feeding back surveillance data to
front line staff reduces hospital acquired infections.36As a
result, our infection control practitioners had traditionally
generated monthly NNIS reports for the MICU. Although
feedback alone is usually ineffective for altering provider
behaviors,37 38it is a useful complement to other strategies for
improving provider performance.39–42To increase our chances
for success and raise awareness for the link between
processes and outcomes, we bundled the new process
measurements with the monthly NNIS reports. When feeding
this information back to front line staff, the leadership
emphasized that process measurement was transparent and
blameless, data were de-identified, and the MICU was
committed to CQI.
Analysis of data
For many years our hospital infection control practitioners
tracked monthly CR-BSI rates using definitions established
by the NNIS system.2While providing an excellent frame-
work for detecting infections, the NNIS database presented
two statistical challenges. Firstly, CR-BSIs were statistically
rare events and the aggregate monthly reports limited our
ability to quickly detect changes. Secondly, NNIS counted all
CVCs in the MICU regardless of whether the CVC was
inserted by providers on another service. Since our efforts
only targeted MICU providers, we needed an alternative
approach that was capable of specifying the provider.
We overcame these barriers by using an alternative
Shewart-type statistical control methodology, called a g
chart.43By monitoring the number of days between infections,
the g chart has greater detection power for rare events
compared with conventional binomial based approaches.44 45
Whenever a CR-BSI occurred we added the data point to our
g chart and calculated the number of days from the previous
infection. Rather than waiting until the end of a pre-specified
time period, we took immediate advantage of each event and
improved our ability to rapidly detect changes (see examples
below). Furthermore, we were able to exclude CVCs inserted
by providers on another service.
The g chart is a type of statistical process control (SPC)
chart and therefore requires a basic understanding of the
principles inherent to SPC.46–49According to SPC theory, two
types of variation exist: special and common cause variation.
The managerial approach for reducing the variation depends
on which type is present. Special cause variation refers to
unnatural variation in a process, usually due to identifiable
events. Reducing special cause variation should focus on
investigating and eliminating the special events. Conversely,
common cause variation is natural and inherent to a process
on a regular basis. As an intrinsic part of the process,
common cause variation is best achieved through process
Reducing bloodstream infections in the ICU 297
At the start of the project we constructed a baseline (pre-
intervention) g chart by querying the NNIS database from 1
January 2000 to 31 October 2002 (fig 3, observations 1–39).
We only plotted CR-BSIs on the g chart for catheters inserted
by the MICU—for example, dialysis catheter CR-BSIs were
not included on the g chart. We measured the average time
between infections (27 days) and used Benneyan’s method
for calculating an upper control limit (UCL=109 days) at
three standard deviations above the pre-intervention mean.44
During the pre-intervention period the number of days
between infections was consistently below the UCL. The
absence of any points above the UCL suggested that the
variation in time between CR-BSIs was inherent to our
current process of care (that is, common cause),47and that
the proper way to reduce the CR-BSI rate was through
process redesign or CQI.50Our goal was to reduce the CR-BSI
rate and thereby increase the time between events. Based on
the g chart, we considered our intervention successful if data
points fell above the UCL since this would correspond to a
decreased CR-BSI rate.
EFFECTS OF CHANGE
In the 2 years between 1 November 2002 and 31 October
2004, a total of 630 CVCs were inserted using the new
checklist. Mortality rates, admission diagnoses, ventilator
days, and lengths of stay were similar for patients admitted
during the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods
(data not shown). Nursing staff immediately embraced the
new insertion checklist because it simplified their documen-
tation and replaced handwritten notes.
Following the introduction of the checklist, the MICU for
the first time collected frequency characteristics for CVC
insertions (table 2). Triple lumen catheters comprised over
half of all CVC insertions and the subclavian vein was the
most common site. As expected in a training hospital, interns
? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
???? ??????? ??????????
??? ? ??? ????
???? ? ?? ????
increase time between infections, hence higher points indicate better performance. As the CR-BSI rate decreases there are fewer data points per year—
this is reflected in shorter calendar year bars along the top. The baseline period is from January 2000 through October 2002 (inclusive of infections 1–
39). The intervention period is from November 2002 through October 2004 (initiated after infection 39 and inclusive of infections 40–45). During the
baseline period the number of days between infections was consistently below the upper control limit (UCL), suggesting the variation in time between
infections was random and inherent to the process of care. During the post-intervention period the number of days between infections was frequently
above the UCL, suggesting the intervention had introduced non-random improvements into the process of care.
Days between catheter related bloodstream infections (CR-BSIs) on a g chart. The g chart monitors time between events. The goal is to
November 2002 to October 2004
Characteristics of CVCs inserted from
Venous insertion site
PGY, postgraduate year.
Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100.
1-34-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24
Percent of insertions
insertions. Process measurements of provider behaviors during CVC
insertions (post-intervention) are plotted over time. The data have been
combined into 3 month aggregates to simplify display. In practice, the
front line staff receive monthly updates with much greater detail.
Process measurements for central venous catheter (CVC)
298Wall, Ely, Elasy, et al
inserted most lines. The majority of procedures occurred
under non-emergent circumstances.
The checklist also generated real time measurements for
the CVC insertion process (fig 4). Using these new process
data, the team embarked on cycles of CQI and also began
Examples of CQI (‘‘maximal sterile barriers’’) and an
exploratory analysis (‘‘femoral CVCs’’) follow.
Example 1: Maximal sterile barriers
Adherence to maximal sterile barriers declined unexpectedly
in early 2003 (fig 5). The team performed secondary analyses
of the process measures and noted that this trend was not
explained by emergent placement circumstances. A break-
down by individual barrier components revealed that use of
the patient drape was the main limitation to maximal sterile
barrier adherence. The team ensured adequate supplies were
stocked on the floor and confirmed providers had completed
the tutorial. Leadership asked front line staff to emphasize
appropriate sterile technique with trainees, particularly use of
the patient drape. In response, the MICU began purchasing
newer CVC kits prepackaged with drapes. In the following
months adherence to maximal sterile barrier gradually
Example 2: Femoral CVCs
Femoral CVCs have more infectious and thrombotic compli-
cations than other venous sites.25–27After noting a large
number of femoral CVCs early in the study, the ICU decided
to further explore this practice pattern (table 3). Femoral
insertions were more likely to have been preceded by
attempts at another site, suggesting that the femoral site
was often a secondary choice. Interestingly, femoral CVCs
exhibited lower rates of hand washing, chlorhexidine use,
and maximal sterile barriers. These trends were not explained
by insertions under emergent conditions (data not shown).
Contrary to popular belief, the femoral site was not more
popular than other venous sites during emergent situations.
As provider performance gradually improved for all inser-
tions, compliance with recommended behaviors likewise
improved at the femoral site. However, the percentage of
femoral CVCs has remained unchanged for 2 years.
Bloodstream infection rate
The last pre-intervention CR-BSI occurred 58 days before the
study (fig 3, infection number 39). When a CR-BSI occurred
55 days into the study, we totalled the number of days from
the last infection (58+55=113) and placed this data point on
the new g chart (number 40). After 233 days another
infection occurred (number 41). For the first time in 3 years,
data points fell above the UCL, suggesting that special cause
variation had affected the process of CVC care. We suspected
our improvement efforts were making a difference and
shared these preliminary results with the staff.
One year into the study the MICU experienced four CR-
BSIs in 6 months (fig 3, infections 41–44). The team began
investigating potential causes for this declining performance.
The process measures did not reveal any change in insertion
behaviors. The infection control practitioners could not
identify any pattern among organisms, catheter types,
providers, or insertion site. As a result, the team re-
emphasized the importance of daily CVC maintenance
??? ?????? ???
??????? ???????? ???
??????? ???????? ???
? ? ???
? ? ??
measurements guided improvement efforts. (A) Declining use of maximal sterile barriers during January and February (arrow) prompted secondary
analyses. (B) The declining performance was not attributable to insertions during emergent circumstances. (C) Process measurements for the individual
barriers revealed that provider use of the patient drape was the main obstacle to maximal sterile barriers adherence. *Maximal sterile barriers denote
the simultaneous use of all four barrier components.
Adherence to use of maximal sterile barriers during insertion of central venous catheters (CVCs). Example showing how real time process
Reducing bloodstream infections in the ICU299
behaviors with the nursing staff (table 1). Although a single
target was never identified, the MICU soon regained its
previous level of high performance.
Overall, the MICU experienced only six CR-BSIs during the
2 years following the intervention. The NNIS CR-BSI rate
was 3.8/1000 catheter-days during the final 6 months of the
study. In contrast, the MICU experienced 25 CR-BSIs during
the 2 years preceding the intervention, corresponding to a
NNIS CR-BSI rate of 7.0/1000 catheter-days. Another
graphical view of these results is shown across the top of
fig 3. Horizontal bars designate the calendar years for the pre-
and post-intervention periods. As the time between CR-BSIs
increases, the number of events per year decreases and the
calendar bars decrease in length.
LESSONS LEARNT AND NEXT STEPS
We have designed a new standardized nursing checklist for
CVC insertion and have shown that real time process
measurement is feasible in a busy MICU. We used process
measurements to overcome barriers to change and success-
fully reduced CR-BSIs using a multifaceted intervention.
Although our intervention was modelled on previous efforts,
our use of continuous real time process measurements
offered a unique advantage not previously described. Two
years later our CR-BSI rate remains at a historic low and
process measurement continues, suggesting good sustain-
ability for our efforts. Armed with real time process
measurements, we can easily engage in CQI, troubleshoot
our system, and monitor for behavioral relapses.
Although we successfully reduced CR-BSIs, the develop-
ment of a system for continuous real time process measure-
ment distinguishes this project. Our ICU had historically
monitored CR-BSI outcomes alone and thus reacted only if
clinical performance declined. In contrast, our staff now use
process measurements to prospectively test changes and
continually improve the quality of CVC care. The experience
has helped our organization to overcome our own ‘‘process
illiteracy’’,22and we are now exporting this project to the
Our results support the findings of recent studies that have
used multifaceted interventions to reduce CR-BSIs. Warren et
al7designed a multifaceted educational intervention that
included reminders at the point of care and performance
dropped nearly 42%. Berenholtz et al6eliminated nearly all
CR-BSIs in their ICU after implementing five staggered
interventions over a 4 year period. These efforts included
educating providers, simplifying insertions by stocking
supplies on a single cart, removing catheters at the earliest
opportunity, using an insertion checklist, and empowering
nurses to stop insertions if patient safety was compromised.
Overall, multifaceted preventive interventions are an excel-
lent strategy for reducing CR-BSIs. We believe our use of real
time process measurements not only complements this
approach but also improves our chances for sustaining any
Our project highlighted several key concepts for sustain-
ability of any improvement initiative (box 1). We recognized
that success depended on leadership buy-in, and we therefore
enlisted this support early in the project. Through the efforts
of an interdisciplinary team, we engaged front line staff,
standardized documentation, simplified work, and avoided
burdensome data collection by embedding measurement into
the daily workflow.51Theoretical frameworks guided our
efforts, including transparency, avoidance of blame, real time
process measurement, and dynamic feedback. We imple-
mented changes at the level of the individual provider and
patient, but considered multiple levels within the healthcare
system.52For example, we aligned our objectives with
national organizations such as the CDC and the Joint
Overcoming patient safety challenges with CQI methodol-
ogies makes good sense. Accrediting bodies now mandate
that hospitals demonstrate process improvement at the
patient level53 54and, by definition, CQI involves front line
staff in cycles of iterative process improvement. CQI is also
well suited to the growing complexity of healthcare, a
particularly important issue in the ICU. Moreover, hospital
leaders and improvement experts believe CQI deserves a
prominent role in health care,55an endorsement that is likely
to improve the sustainability of CQI efforts.
We assessed the impact of our intervention using the g
chart. Although CR-BSIs are rare events, the mathematical
properties inherent to the g chart allowed us to detect
changes in the CR-BSI rate rapidly and thereby assess the
impact of our intervention at the earliest opportunity. Two
months after the release of our intervention we suspected our
efforts were making a difference and we shared these
preliminary results with front line nurses and physicians.
Our project has potential limitations. We assumed that
nurses accurately captured the information and completed a
checklist for every insertion, but formal validity and
reliability analyses were not undertaken. By using the g-type
chart we assumed that system factors affecting CR-BSI
sites (November 2002–May 2003)
Central venous catheters (CVCs) inserted at the femoral site compared with other
Femoral site (n=33)Other sites* (n=84)
p valueNo (%)No (%)
Another site attempted first
Chlorhexidine skin preparation
Maximal sterile barriers
*Other sites include internal jugular vein, subclavian vein, or any non-femoral vein.
Box 1 Key concepts for sustainability
N Leadership support
N Interdisciplinary teams
N Standardize and simplify work
N Embed measurement in daily work
N Transparency and avoidance of blame
N Real time process measurement
N Continuous audit and feedback
N Systems approach
300Wall, Ely, Elasy, et al
probability were stable in our MICU. Although the number of
patient admissions, mortality rates, admission diagnoses, and
ICU lengths of stay were similar during the baseline and
intervention periods, it is possible that some undetected case
mix variable or change in catheter duration may have
contributed to the decreased CR-BSI rate. Regardless of this,
patient variables would not affect the accuracy of process
measures. While the checklist specifically targeted insertion,
unmeasured improvements during catheter maintenance
may also have contributed to the reduced CR-BSI rate.
Finally, we did not determine whether every component in
our multifaceted intervention actually contributed to the
Concerns about patient privacy and institutional risk
improvement. We addressed these issues by devising an
anonymous de-identified system for process measurement.
The limitation to this trade off was our inability to further
analyse outcome or process measures at the patient level. If
quality improvement remains a priority for our healthcare
system, oversight guidelines will need to better define how
CQI efforts can achieve their maximal effect while addressing
concerns about discoverability.
This study calls attention to a common dichotomy in
today’s healthcare system. Many hospitals spend consider-
able resources tracking nosocomial infections but rarely
measure the clinical processes that contribute to those
outcomes. Successful infection prevention requires interdis-
ciplinary teams, educational interventions, and data disse-
mination to clinical staff.56By developing a system that
measures a process of care in real time, an organization is
poised to refine these approaches, generate hypotheses, test
changes, and react appropriately.
The authors thank Steve Deppen and Martha Newton (Center for
Clinical Improvement); Bill Schaffner and Tom Talbot (Infection
Control and Hospital Epidemiology); Jan Bachman and Arthur
Wheeler (MICU) and the entire 7-North staff for their hard work and
ongoing commitment to patient safety.
R J Wall, T A Elasy, R S Dittus, T Speroff, Veterans Affairs National
Quality Scholars Program, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System,
Nashville, TN, USA
E W Ely, T A Elasy, R S Dittus, T Speroff, VA Tennessee Valley Geriatric
Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC) and VA Tennessee
Valley Healthcare System Health Services Research Center for Patient
Healthcare Behavior, Nashville, TN; Center for Health Services
Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
E W Ely, Division of Allergy/Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine,
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
T A Elasy, R S Dittus, T Speroff, Division of General Internal Medicine,
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
J Foss, Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, TN, USA
K S Wilkerson, Department of Infection Control, Vanderbilt University
Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
Dr Wall was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations,
Department of Veterans Affairs, VA National Quality Scholars
Program and with resources at the VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare
System, Nashville, TN. Dr Ely is the Associate Director of Research for
the VA Tennessee Valley Geriatric Research and Education Clinical
Center (GRECC). He is a recipient of the Paul Beeson Faculty Scholar
Award from the Alliance for Aging Research and is a recipient of a K23
from the National Institute of Health (#AG01023-01A1).
Competing interests: none declared.
1 NNIS. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report,
data summary from January 1992 through June 2003, issued August 2003.
Am J Infect Control 2003;31:481–98.
2 O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, et al. Guidelines for the prevention
of intravascular catheter-related infections. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51(RR-10):1–29.
3 Dimick JB, Pelz RK, Consunji R, et al. Increased resource use associated with
catheter-related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit. Arch
4 Rello J, Ochagavia A, Sabanes E, et al. Evaluation of outcome of intravenous
catheter-related infections in critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
5 Pittet D, Tarara D, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically
ill patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA
6 Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA, et al. Eliminating catheter-related
bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med
7 Warren DK, Zack JE, Mayfield JL, et al. The effect of an education program on
the incidence of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection in a
medical ICU. Chest 2004;126:1612–8.
8 Coopersmith CM, Rebmann TL, Zack JE, et al. Effect of an education program
on decreasing catheter-related bloodstream infections in the surgical intensive
care unit. Crit Care Med 2002;30:59–64.
9 Sherertz RJ, Ely EW, Westbrook DM, et al. Education of physicians-in-training
can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med
10 Eggimann P, Harbarth S, Constantin MN, et al. Impact of a prevention
strategy targeted at vascular-access care on incidence of infections acquired
in intensive care. Lancet 2000;355:1864–8.
11 Shortell SM, Bennett CL, Byck GR. Assessing the impact of continuous quality
improvement on clinical practice: what it will take to accelerate progress.
Milbank Q 1998;76:593–624, 510.
12 Berwick DM. Continuous improvement as an ideal in health care. N Engl J Med
13 Rogers S. Continuous quality improvement: effects on professional practice
and patient outcomes. Cochrane Review. The Cochrane Library. Issue 3.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, 2004.
14 Cox S, Wilcock P, Young J. Improving the repeat prescribing process in a busy
general practice. A study using continuous quality improvement methodology.
Qual Health Care 1999;8:119–25.
15 Griffith D, Hampton D, Switzer M, et al. Facilitating the recovery of open heart
surgery patients through quality improvement efforts and CareMAP
implementation. Am J Crit Care 1996;5:346–52.
16 Joiner GA, Salisbury D, Bollin GE. Utilizing quality assurance as a tool for
reducing the risk of nosocomial ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Med
17 O’Connor GT, Plume SK, Olmstead EM, et al. A regional intervention to
improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft
surgery. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group.
18 Headrick LA, Neuhauser D. Quality health care. JAMA 1994;271:1711–2.
19 Splaine ME, Aron DC, Dittus RS, et al. A curriculum for training quality
scholars to improve the health and health care of veterans and the community
at large. Qual Manag Health Care 2002;10:10–8.
20 Nelson EC, Batalden PB, Ryer JC. Clinical improvement action guide.
Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
21 van Bokhoven MA, Kok G, van der Weijden T. Designing a quality
improvement intervention: a systematic approach. Qual Saf Health Care
22 Nelson EC, Batalden PB, Plume SK, et al. Improving health care. Part 2: A
clinical improvement worksheet and users’ manual. Jt Comm J Qual Improv
23 Eggimann P, Pittet D. Overview of catheter-related infections with special
emphasis on prevention based on educational programs. Clin Microbiol Infect
24 Armstrong CW, Mayhall CG, Miller KB, et al. Prospective study of catheter
replacement and other risk factors for infection of hyperalimentation catheters.
J Infect Dis 1986;154:808–16.
25 Heard SO, Wagle M, Vijayakumar E, et al. Influence of triple-lumen central
venous catheters coated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on the
incidence of catheter-related bacteremia. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:81–7.
26 Joynt GM, Kew J, Gomersall CD, et al. Deep venous thrombosis caused by
femoral venous catheters in critically ill adult patients. Chest
27 Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, et al. Complications of femoral and
subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized
controlled trial. JAMA 2001;286:700–7.
28 Boyce JM, Pittet D. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings.
Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory
Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force.
Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Association for Professionals
in Infection Control/Infectious Diseases Society of America. MMWR Recomm
29 Maki DG, Ringer M, Alvarado CJ. Prospective randomised trial of povidone-
iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine for prevention of infection associated with
central venous and arterial catheters. Lancet 1991;338:339–43.
30 Mermel LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern
31 Anon. Vanderbilt Central Venous Catheter Infection website. Online at http://
www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/cvctutorial (accessed 1 January 2005).
Reducing bloodstream infections in the ICU301
32 Mody L, McNeil SA, Sun R, et al. Introduction of a waterless alcohol-based Download full-text
hand rub in a long-term-care facility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
33 American Board of Internal Medicine. Available at: http://www.abim.org/
about/pp.htm#7 (accessed 1 January 2005).
34 Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, et al. Getting research findings into practice:
closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic
reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings.
35 Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, et al. Changing provider behavior: an
overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001;39(8 Suppl
36 Gaynes R, Richards C, Edwards J, et al. Feeding back surveillance data to
prevent hospital-acquired infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:295–8.
37 Grol R. Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among
professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. JAMA
38 Thomson O’Brien MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, et al. Audit and feedback:
effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2000;(2):CD000259.
39 Kiefe CI, Allison JJ, Williams OD, et al. Improving quality improvement using
achievable benchmarks for physician feedback: a randomized controlled trial.
40 Goetz AM, Kedzuf S, Wagener M, et al. Feedback to nursing staff as an
intervention to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Am J Infect
41 Mohr JJ, Mahoney CC, Nelson EC, et al. Improving health care. Part 3:
Clinical benchmarking for best patient care. Jt Comm J Qual Improv
42 Dubbert PM, Dolce J, Richter W, et al. Increasing ICU staff handwashing:
effects of education and group feedback. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
43 Benneyan JC. Number-between g-type statistical quality control charts for
monitoring adverse events. Health Care Manag Sci 2001;4:305–18.
44 Benneyan JC. Performance of number-between g-type statistical
control charts for monitoring adverse events. Health Care Manag Sci
45 Kaminsky FC, Benneyan JC, Davis RB, et al. Statistical control charts based on
a geometric distribution. J Qual Technol 1992;24:63–9.
46 Wheeler DJ, Chambers DS. Understanding statistical process control, 2nd ed.
Knoxville, TN: SPC Press, 1992.
47 Carey RG. Improving healthcare with control charts: basic and advanced SPC
methods and case studies. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press, 2003.
48 Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for
research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care
49 Benneyan JC. Statistical quality control methods in infection control and
hospital epidemiology. Part II: Chart use, statistical properties, and research
issues. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:265–83.
50 Shewart WA. The economic control of quality of manufactured product. New
York: Van Nostrand (reprinted by ASQC Quality Press, Milwakee, WI, 1980),
51 Nelson EC, Splaine ME, Batalden PB, et al. Building measurement and data
collection into medical practice. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:460–6.
52 Ferlie EB, Shortell SM. Improving the quality of health care in the United
Kingdom and the United States: a framework for change. Milbank Q
53 Anon. Big changes ahead in JCAHO’s survey process, so start working now.
Hosp Peer Rev 2002;27:161–5.
54 Morrissey J. Changing the rules. With hospitals increasingly dissatisfied with
the accreditation process and its high costs, the JCAHO overhauls its
approach. Mod Healthc 2002;32:8–9, 16.
55 Blumenthal D, Kilo CM. A report card on continuous quality improvement.
Milbank Q 1998;76:625–48, 511.
56 Richards C, Emori TG, Peavy G, et al. Promoting quality through measurement
of performance and response: prevention success stories. Emerg Infect Dis
302 Wall, Ely, Elasy, et al