Cross-cultural validation, eliminating CLABSI. ICU. 2008-2021.
Author: Cirlia Alvarez.,InesGresnik., Jorge Pisapia., Alejandra Rodriguez., Gabriela Vidiella.
Clinica y Maternidad Suizo Argentina

Background: CLABSIs are commoninfectionsassociatedwith CVC, theyoccur in the ICU. Ourinstitutiondoesnotmoveawayfromthisevidence, 2007, CLABSI, 9.52‰ and 1.90‰, VIHDA.,2008. The OMR were, SAMR, SCN and GN

Object: Cross-cultural validation, insertion and maintenance of theBundle and Check List, (I.H.I., 2006) to eliminate CLABSI, in patientsadmitted to the ICU, 2008-2021

Methods: Descriptive study, uninterrupted time series. 2008-2021. All patients in ICU > 24 hours, with a CICC and who developed CLABSI.

Results: In 2008 the CLABSI rate was 7.90‰ (VIHDA, 1.90‰), REI>1. GP SCN and MRSA 37.5% and Gram - > 24%.

Post cross-cultural validation of the Bundle and Check List, August, 2008 implementation of the insertion Check list, the CLABSI, confirmed by LAB, decreased, 2009 (2.36‰) 2010 (1.85‰) REI 1.09, and periods of rate 0‰, infection.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, CLABSI increased to 4.41‰, (2020) and 3.94‰, (2021). Figure N° 1 and 3.

Global CLABSI rate-2009-2021 (55 /27924=1.96‰) (p: 0.000) (95% CI: 0.0059-0006) CHI2 (25.64), still below the VIHDA rate.,2021 (6.27‰), REI >o = 1.

The CICC utilization rate of 66.68%. In 2013-2017 the OMR was KBS KPC positive, maintaining it over time; 16.13% (VIHDA., 2021. 28.26%) and MRSA (16,1%), causing CLABSI. Figure N°2

Between 2008-2021, 3,998 CICC were used in ICU, in patients hospitalized > 24 hours, of the Check List overall compliance rate 66.85%.

The direct cost of each institutional CLABSI in 2007 was estimated to be $378,573, and in 2021 the average CLABSI was 2,500,000 only during antimicrobial treatment. Average days of stay of patients in ICUa exceed 25 days.

Conclusions: Thecross-cultural validation of the use of Bundles and Check List, (QR) continuous training and feedback, to thehealthteam and dailysurveillance (2009-2021), representedmaintaining CLABSI ratesbelow 6.27‰, VIHDA.,2021

Future Directions: Continue correcting deviations, Debriefing insertion and maintenance of the CICC including the ANTT® technique, aimed at all healthcare personnel, promptly remove the CICC if it is not needed.

Bibliography: Pronovost,  P. (2006). An Intervention to Decrease Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the ICU. The New England Journal of Medicine.  Recuperado de doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa061115

Rowley, C. (2017). Implementing the Aseptic Non Touch Technique (ANTT®) clinical practice framework for aseptic technique: a pragmatic evaluation using a mixed methods approach in two London hospitals. J Infect Prev.  Recuperado de doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1757177417720996

Álvarez, C. & Margalejo Raffin, S. (2020). Resumen de las recomendaciones para la prevención de bacteriemias asociadas a catéteres vasculares. ATISPA.  Recuperado de https://www.atispa.org.ar/guias-de-practica-clinica/ Acceso 12 noviembre 2022

Resar,  R. &  Griffin, F. (2012). Using Care Bundles to Improve Health Care Quality. Institute for Healthcare Improvement.  Recuperado de https://www.ihi.org/ Acceso 05 de febrero 2023

Pagano,  I. (2020). Reporte anual de vigilancia de infecciones asociadas al cuidado de la salud . Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Epidemiología Dr. Juan H. Jara. Programa Nacional de Vigilancia de Infecciones Hospitalarias de Argentina. Recuperado de  http://sgc.anlis.gob.ar/handle/123456789/2355  Acceso 04 de febrero 2023