Opinion statement
Given the lack of randomized controlled trials or robust literature in children, we are left with recommended bundles, adult-based literature, and common sense. The quality improvement approach to studying prevention of hospital-acquired infections through the use of bundles has generally been studied en masse, rather than by individual bundle elements. Due to the mortality risk, indirect and direct attributable costs, and the inevitable penalties associated with these largely preventable harms, we must reliably implement bundles to avoid these hospital-acquired infections. ”Implementation is the most difficult but most essential aspect of harm prevention”. The journey to zero harm, whether infectious or not, will ultimately require a robust safety culture, incorporation of high reliability principles, and patient and family engagement.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are a significant threat to patient safety and a large source of cost, morbidity, and mortality within our healthcare system. In the US, the estimated yearly incidence of HAIs in adult and pediatric patients is between 722,000 and 1.5 million events resulting in approximately 75,000 to 100,000 patient deaths; one quarter of HAIs occur in patients in ICUs or high risk nurseries [1, 2]. In pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients, the most frequent HAIs are bloodstream infections (~28%), pneumonia (~21%), and urinary tract infections (~15%) [3]. In a recent European study, the prevalence of HAIs was 15.5% in PICUs and 10.7% in NICUs, though pediatric oncology units were not listed as a distinct location from the wards [4]. Thus, our review will focus on the most common HAIs in children: central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI).
Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS), an organization which evolved into a national quality and safety network in 2012, has published multiple pediatric prevention bundles for various hospital-acquired conditions [5]. Operational definitions of harm and evidence-based bundles designed to prevent harm have undergone multiple revisions and now exist to aid pediatric hospitals in the prevention of CLABSI, CAUTI, ventilator-associated events (VAEs), and surgical site infections [6••, 7]. This collaborative, partially funded by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has become a leading player in the prevention of hospital-acquired harm in children.
Definitions
In order to reduce HAIs, it is worthwhile to understand the definitions applied to these infections, though they are most often used when attempting to determine whether an infection meets the criteria for the operational definition. However, clinical infections do not necessarily correlate with regulatory definitions, and a patient who clinically appears infected must be treated as such. The CDC defines laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infections as one of the three types, and the first two types apply to any age patient whereas the third type involves criteria that apply only to children <1 year old [8]. Additionally, mucosal barrier injury laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infections apply to a subset of oncology patients who have bloodstream infections caused by a specified list of enteric organisms [8]. The CDC also defines symptomatic urinary tract infections, asymptomatic bacteremic urinary tract infections, and urinary system infections, which have specific criteria as well [9].
In January 2017, the CDC defined VAE and began requesting data based on this new definition, which specifically excluded children [10]. VAE refers to a family of events that includes infectious ventilator-associated condition (iVAC), and non-infectious VAEs. Instead, the CDC requests hospitals to continue submit pediatric and neonatal data based on the ventilator-associated pneumonia definition, which is based on radiologic and clinical criteria. SPS has transitioned to collecting pediatric VAE data starting January 2017 [7]. The current SPS definition of pediatric VAE utilizes mean airway pressure (MAP) and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) in a patient who has had at least 2 days of stability or improvement followed by a minimum FiO2 increase of >25% and daily MAP increase of >4 over ≥2 days [7]. The daily minimum values must be maintained for at least 1 h. The definition is developed based on a study of ~9000 children in neonatal, pediatric, and pediatric cardiac intensive care units (ICUs) [11]. Patients excluded from the definition are those with artificial lungs, on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, using airway pressure release ventilation, or using volumetric diffuse respirators. This definition does include neonates, patients with a tracheostomy, patients on high frequency oscillatory ventilation, and patients on high frequency jet ventilation. According to the definition, patients can have a VAE no more than every 14 days. The definition is transitioning, as conditions other than pneumonia may harm patients on a ventilator. Non-infectious VAEs include conditions such as fluid overload, aspiration, and mechanical issues. For now, hospitals continue to report pediatric VAPs to the National Healthcare Safety Network, and pediatric VAEs to SPS. Most bundles target prevention of VAP, as the VAE definition is relatively new.
The CDC provides useful flowcharts for diagnosis of primary and secondary HAIs. The definitions are complex and change frequently so the CDC site should be referenced for the most up-to-date definition [8,9,10, 12].
HAI preventability and cost
The majority of HAIs are considered to be preventable. Multicenter collaboratives believe that by using current HAI risk reduction strategies, more than 70% of CLABSIs and CAUTIs and up to 55% of VAPs may be prevented [13]. These significant reductions in CLABSIs, CAUTIs, and VAPs could potentially save between 15,000 and 45,000 lives annually [13]. Even mucosal barrier infections, a type of CLABSI frequently involving translocation of bacteria in neutropenic oncology patients, may be potentially prevented using oral care bundles [14,15,16].
While the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality are the main motivating factors for HAI prevention, avoidance of high attributable costs can also motivate organizations to invest in prevention. Estimates of the annual HAI costs in the US range from $9.8 to $45 billion [17, 18]. Pediatric patients who develop a CLABSI cost the healthcare system $33,000–55,000 per infection, with an increased length of stay of 9–19 days [19,20,21]. Attributable cost and length of stay for CLABSIs in neonates is estimated at $90,000 and 31.5 additional hospital days, respectively [19]. The direct attributable cost of a pediatric VAP is estimated at $51,000, and the direct attributable cost of a CAUTI is estimated at $7200 [22,23,24].
The bundle concept
The concept of a prevention “bundle” to reduce HAIs was born at the turn of the millennium out of a cooperative approach between two groups, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and the Voluntary Hospital Association [24]. Recognizing the need to improve patient care in the critical care setting, these groups formed a collaborative among 13 hospitals to develop processes to improve multiple aspects of critical care. This collaboration found its greatest success in the care of patients receiving mechanical ventilation and those with central venous catheters [24]. They grouped together the most clinically accepted best practices and evidence-based interventions for ventilator and central line care, terming them “bundles” [25,26,27]. According to the IHI, a bundle is “a small set of evidence-based interventions for a defined patient segment/population and care setting that, when implemented together, will result in significantly better outcomes than when implemented individually” [24]. In addition, effective bundles typically have the following characteristics: [24, 28]
-
The bundle has few (typically three to five) interventions, making it practical but not comprehensive.
-
Each element has strong evidence, often supported by a randomized controlled trial and already accepted with consensus among providers.
-
Each bundle element is independent so that if one element is not performed, it will not impede the completion of other elements.
-
A multidisciplinary team develops the bundle and refines it through standardized improvement processes, research, and the experience of users.
-
Bundle elements should be more descriptive, rather than obligatory, allowing for site-specific customization and appropriate clinical judgment.
-
A bundle is only complete if each individual element is completed. Compliance should be measured using an all-or-none measurement.
Compliance with bundle elements requires healthcare staff cooperation, but leads to improved performance compared to improvements achieved when focus is placed on only an individual bundle element [24]. The IHI’s white paper on bundles gives the following example: when each of five bundle elements is delivered at 90% compliance (which may initially seem fairly acceptable), the entire bundle is actually delivered at 59% compliance (90% × 90% × 90% × 90% × 90%) [24]. In reality, initial rates of all-or-none compliance are often much lower than the above example, which can be alarming to healthcare workers, patients, and families. In turn, this prompts awareness that maximal care is not being delivered and frequently motivates healthcare teams toward multidisciplinary, cooperative action to improve their processes [24]. However, it is important to note that there is scant research indicating that bundles work on their own as an isolated strategy [28]. Rather, bundles should be used as a tool within a comprehensive quality improvement strategy.
Over time, the IHI has published additional bundles for sepsis resuscitation, elective obstetrical induction, and obstetrical augmentation [29, 30]. SPS has published bundles for the prevention of multiple other non-infectious pediatric hospital acquired harms as well [6••]. As healthcare bundles gained increasing acceptance as valuable tools in the adult population, providers began to advocate for the use of bundles in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units [28]. When compared to adults, pediatric patients have different anatomy, physiology, disease states, and treatment plans [28]. These differences further underscore the need for studying pediatric-specific bundle elements and implementation strategies.
Bundle use in neonates and children
The impact of CLABSI bundles has been studied most extensively in children’s hospitals. Many have demonstrated reductions in CLABSI rates after the implementation of bundles in PICUs [28, 31, 32] and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) [28, 31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Pediatric CLABSI insertion (Table 1) and CLABSI care and maintenance (Table 2) bundles from reputable sources are summarized in this chapter. The Association for Vascular Access, Infusion Nurses Society, National Association of Neonatal Nurses, and others have published additional CLABSI prevention guidelines [43, 44•, 45]. IHI, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, and SPS have published pediatric-specific strategies for VAP prevention (Table 3) [6••, 48, 50•]. Similarly, there is a growing body of evidence for the effectiveness of bundles for VAP reduction in PICUs [28, 31, 32, 51, 52] and NICU [28, 31, 32, 53, 54] setting. While there have been fewer studies on the efficacy of CAUTI insertion (Table 4) and care and maintenance bundles (Table 5) in children, a quality improvement strategy utilizing a bundle approach found a 50% reduction in CAUTI rates in PICU patients [55]. The rate of HAIs does seem to be decreasing, due to implementation of these bundles along with other quality improvement efforts. Of note, a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) dataset including 174 hospitals and excluding critical access, long-term care, and cancer hospitals noted a 62% reduction in CLABSIs, 76% reduction in VAP, and unchanged rate of CAUTI over the 2007–2012 study period [56]. Some note that the evidence for bundle elements in NICU and PICU patients is not as robust as in the adult population, leading to variety in bundle elements depending on the organization [32].
There is significant variation between organizations on contents of various pediatric bundles and in the number of bundle components. Nearly all focus on avoiding device utilization unless absolutely necessary, device removal when no longer absolutely essential, and minimizing entry into the device. However, despite these weaknesses, the most difficult part of quality improvement science is translation to the bedside. Thus, hardwiring processes set up for success, including the use of clinical decision support and studying workflow, are key to this translation to the bedside.
Beyond the bundle
Certainly hand hygiene and personal protective equipment, as well as meticulous care and maintenance of invasive devices, are the cornerstones of infection prevention. In addition to bundle utilization, some institutions have implemented additional strategies in an effort to prevent HAIs. “No touch” methods such as ultraviolet light (UV-C or UV-xenon) and hydrogen peroxide (vapor or aerosolized) have been used as an additional room cleaning strategy and have promising results in the reduction of multidrug resistant organisms such as Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) [57]. Self-disinfecting surfaces such as plating with copper, silver, or triclosan on bedrails and other high touch surfaces have also been used with promising results [58]. Copper plating has been shown to reduce bacterial contamination of surfaces in several studies, and one study demonstrated reduction in HAIs [59,60,61]. Ethanol locks have been used to prevent CLABSI, though mostly as a secondary prevention strategy particularly in children with intestinal failure [62, 63]. Ethanol acts by removing biofilm and also through bactericidal and fungicidal properties. Resistance has not been documented with the use of ethanol locks, and it is fairly inexpensive [64]. Drawbacks include the requirement for dwell time (i.e., the line cannot be continuously infusing), possible increased risk of breakage or thrombosis, potential toxicity in small infants, and the inability to use with a polyurethane catheter. Continuous passive disinfection caps have also been studied extensively as a CLABSI prevention strategy, and a meta-analysis did demonstrate reduction in CLABSI rates with the use of barrier caps [65]. Most experts would suggest that the needleless connector should still be scrubbed after the removal of the device cap in order to maximize aseptic technique.
One of the most extensively adopted strategies for HAI prevention has been the utilization of chlorhexidine (CHG) bathing. This broad-spectrum topical antiseptic is effective against a wide spectrum of organisms, and when used for bathing, its antiseptic effect is known to last up to 24 h after it is applied. CHG bathing has been found to reduce CLABSIs, prevalence of multidrug resistant organism colonization (ex: MRSA, VRE), CAUTIs, blood culture contamination, clostridium difficile infection, and surgical site infections when used preoperatively [66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. Historically, there were concerns about CHG causing neurotoxicity in infants similarly to hexachlorophene, a chemically distinct compound that caused neurotoxicity in infants in the 1970s. However to date, there is no evidence that CHG accumulates in the blood of children even after repeated exposure [74]. Since there are topical products such as lotions that contain compounds known to inhibit CHG activity, compatible skin products must be chosen with care. Several studies examined the impact on nursing workload when using CHG bathing protocols and found CHG bathing preferable to soap and water baths [73, 75]. In fact, nurses continued the use of CHG baths after the studies were over; the bath took ~4–5 min to complete, and staff were satisfied with the method and effectiveness on patients [73, 75]. The data to support CHG bathing in critically ill children in Milstone’s large study demonstrating lower incidence of bacteremia did include bone marrow transplant and other immunocompromised patients [76]. CHG bathing has also been studied in non-critically ill pediatric patients [66]. Caregivers should avoid applying CHG to broken skin, above the neck, or on mucous membranes. Antimicrobial resistance has not been noted with the use of CHG bathing in children; however, CHG bathing has been associated with development of multidrug resistant gram negative bacterial infections in adult stem cell transplant patients [77, 78]. The SCRUB (scrubbing with chlorhexidine reduces unwanted bacteria) trial was a landmark study in pediatrics which was an unmasked, cluster-randomized, crossover trial in ten PICUs at five hospitals in the USA evaluating the use of CHG baths in nearly 5000 admissions [76]. CHG was well tolerated (1% of children developed a minor skin reaction, though there is a risk of a more severe reaction). Critically ill children who received daily CHG baths had a lower incidence of bacteremia compared with the control group getting soap and water baths (3.2 vs 4.9 per 1000 patient days, p = 0.044, representing a 36% lower risk of bacteremia). There was a non-statistically significant lower mortality rate in CHG group [76]. SPS recommends daily CHG bathing in children with a central venous line [6••].
In conclusion, while elements may be added or removed from HAI prevention bundles with additional research, it is likely that most of the success described has occurred after culture change and reliable institutional implementation of bundles. Success will additionally rely on intangibles such as patient and family engagement, financial commitment to resources needed, intuitive clinical decision support, serious engagement from the bedside to senior leadership, use of high reliability principles, interdisciplinary teamwork and communication, and a robust culture of safety [79,80,81].
Change history
28 April 2018
The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake in Tables 3, 4 and 5 captions.
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Pollock DA, et al. Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep Wash DC 1974. 2007;122(2):160–6. doi:10.1177/003335490712200205.
Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati G, Kainer MA, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(13):1198–208. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1306801.
Richards MJ, Edwards JR, Culver DH, et al. Nosocomial infections in pediatric intensive care units in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Pediatrics. 1999;103(4):e39.
Zingg W, Hopkins S, Gayet-Ageron A, Holmes A, Sharland M, Suetens C, et al. Health-care-associated infections in neonates, children, and adolescents: an analysis of pediatric data from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control point-prevalence survey. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:381–9.
How it all started. Solutions for Patient Safety. http://www.solutionsforpatientsafety.org/about-us/how-it-all-started. Accessed 1 May 2017.
•• SPS prevention bundles. Solutions for Patient Safety; 2017. http://www.solutionsforpatientsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/SPS-Prevention-Bundles.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017. SPS has published pediatric-specific bundles for prevention of hospital-acquired harm.
Operational definitions. Solutions for Patient Safety; 2017. http://www.solutionsforpatientsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/sps-operating-definitions.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Bloodstream infection event. CDC. January 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/4psc_clabscurrent.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2017.
Urinary tract infection. CDC. January 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/7psccauticurrent.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2017.
Ventilator-associated event. January 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/10-vae_final.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2017.
Cocoros NM, Priebe GP, Logan LK, Coffin S, Larsen G, Toltzis P, et al. A Pediatric Approach to Ventilator-Associated Events Surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(3):327–33. doi:10.1017/ice.2016.277.
Pneumonia Event. January 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/6pscvapcurrent.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2017.
Umscheid CA, Mitchell MD, Doshi JA, Agarwal R, Williams K, Brennan PJ. Estimating the Proportion of Healthcare-Associated Infections That Are Reasonably Preventable and the Related Mortality and Costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(02):101–14. doi:10.1086/657912.
Best D, Osterkamp E, Demmel K, Kiniyalocts S, Mock S, Mulligan K, et al. Increasing Activities of Daily Living Is as Easy as 1–2-3. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2016;33(5):345–52. doi:10.1177/1043454215616607.
Lalla RV, Bowen J, Barasch A, Elting L, Epstein J, Keefe DM, et al. MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy. Cancer. 2014;120(10):1453–61. doi:10.1002/cncr.28592.
Oral cryotherapy for oral mucositis in patients receiving chemotherapy. Cincinnati children’s hospital medical center; 2013. https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/service/j/anderson-center/evidence-based-care/recommendations/topic. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O, Franz C, Song P, Yamin CK, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(22):2039–46. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9763.
Scott II RD. The direct medical costs of healthcare-associated infections in U.S. hospitals and the benefits of prevention. Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Preparedness, Detection, and Control of Infectious Diseases. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/pdfs/hai/scott_costpaper.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Goudie A, Dynan L, Brady PW, Rettiganti M. Attributable cost and length of stay for central line-associated bloodstream infections. Pediatrics. 2014;133(6):e1525–32. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-3795.
Nowak JE, Brilli RJ, Lake MR, Sparling KW, Butcher J, Schulte M, et al. Reducing catheter-associated bloodstream infections in the pediatric intensive care unit: Business case for quality improvement. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2010;11(5):579–87. doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181d90569.
Elward AM, Hollenbeak CS, Warren DK, et al. Attributable cost of nosocomial primary bloodstream infection in pediatric intensive care unit patients. Pediatrics. 2005;115(4):868–72.
Brilli R, Sparling K, Lake M, et al. The business case for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in pediatric intensive care unit patients. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34(11):629–38.
Goudie A, Dynan L, Brady PW, Fieldston E, Brilli RJ, Walsh KE. Costs of Venous Thromboembolism, Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection, and Pressure Ulcer. Pediatrics. 2015;136(3):432–9. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-1386.
Resar R, Griffin F, Haraden C, et al. Using care bundles to improve health care quality. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Cambridge: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2012. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/IHIWhitePapers/UsingCareBundles.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2017
How-to Guide. Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2012. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/HowtoGuidePreventVAP.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2017
How-to Guide. Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2012. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/HowtoGuidePreventCentralLineAssociatedBloodstreamInfection.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2017
How-to Guide. Prevent Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2012. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/HowtoGuidePreventCatheterAssociatedUrinaryTractInfection.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2017
Lachman P, Yuen S. Using care bundles to prevent infection in neonatal and pediatric ICUs. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2009;22(3):224–8. doi:10.1097/QCO.0b013e3283297b68.
Severe sepsis bundles. Institute fxor Healthcare Improvement; 2013. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/SevereSepsisBundles.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2017.
How-to guide: Prevent obstetrical adverse events. Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2012. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/HowtoGuidePreventObstetricalAdverseEvents.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Huskins WC. Quality improvement interventions to prevent healthcare-associated infections in neonates and children. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2012;24(1):103–12. doi:10.1097/MOP.0b013e32834ebdc3.
Smulders CA, van Gestel JPJ, Bos AP. Are central line bundles and ventilator bundles effective in critically ill neonates and children? Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(8):1352–8. doi:10.1007/s00134-013-2927-7.
Fisher D, Cochran KM, Provost LP, Patterson J, Bristol T, Metzguer K, et al. Reducing central line-associated bloodstream infections in North Carolina NICUs. Pediatrics. 2013;132(6):e1664–71. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2000.
Wang W, Zhao C, Ji Q, Liu Y, Shen G, Wei L. Prevention of peripherally inserted central line-associated blood stream infections in very low-birth-weight infants by using a central line bundle guideline with a standard checklist: a case control study. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15:69. doi:10.1186/s12887-015-0383-y.
Steiner M, Langgartner M, Cardona F, Waldhör T, Schwindt J, Haiden N, et al. Significant Reduction of Catheter-associated Blood Stream Infections in Preterm Neonates After Implementation of a Care Bundle Focusing on Simulation Training of Central Line Insertion. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34(11):1193–6. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000000841.
Resende DS, Peppe ALG, dos Reis H, Abdallah VOS, Ribas RM, Gontijo Filho PP. Late onset sepsis in newborn babies: epidemiology and effect of a bundle to prevent central line associated bloodstream infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Braz J Infect Dis. 2015;19(1):52–7. doi:10.1016/j.bjid.2014.09.006.
Ceballos K, Waterman K, Hulett T, Makic MBF. Nurse-driven quality improvement interventions to reduce hospital-acquired infection in the NICU. Adv Neonatal Care. 2013;13(3):154–163; quiz 164–5. doi:10.1097/ANC.0b013e318285fe70.
Jeong IS, Park SM, Lee JM, Song JY, Lee SJ. Effect of central line bundle on central line-associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(8):710–6. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2012.10.010.
Grover TR, Pallotto EK, Brozanski B, Piazza AJ, Chuo J, Moran S, et al. Interdisciplinary teamwork and the power of a quality improvement collaborative in tertiary neonatal intensive care units. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2015;29(2):179–86. doi:10.1097/JPN.0000000000000102.
O’Grady N, Alexander M, Burns L, Dellinger P, Garland J, Heard S, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections, 2011. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/pdfs/bsi-guidelines-2011.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Checklist for prevention of central line associated blood stream infections. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/pdfs/bsi/checklist-for-clabsi.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Barnes S, Olmsted R, Monsees E, et al. Guide to preventing central line-associated bloodstream infections. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2015. http://apic.org/Resource_/TinyMceFileManager/2015/APIC_CLABSI_WEB.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Best practice guidelines in the care and maintenance of pediatric central venous catheters. 2nd ed. Pediatric Special Interest Group of AVA; 2015.
• Gorski L, Hadaway L, Hagle ME, et al. Infusion therapy standards of practice. J Infus Nurs. 2016;39(suppl1):S1–S159. Frequently referenced source for CLABSI prevention guidelines.
Peripherally inserted central catheters: Guidelines for practice. 3rd ed. National Association of Neonatal Nurses, 2015.
Gould C, Umscheid C, Agarwal R, et al. Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/pdfs/cautiguideline2009final.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Felix K, Bellush MJ, Bor B. Guide to preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2014. http://apic.org/Resource_/EliminationGuideForm/0ff6ae59-0a3a-4640-97b5-eee38b8bed5b/File/CAUTI_06.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. How to guide pediatric supplement: ventilator-associated pneumonia 2012. http://www..org/resources/Pages/Tools/HowtoGuidePreventVAPPediatricSupplement.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Greene L, Sposato K. Guide to the elimination of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2009. http://www.apic.org/Resource_/EliminationGuideForm/18e326ad-b484-471c-9c35-6822a53ee4a2/File/VAP_09.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017.
• Klompas M, Branson R, Eichenwald EC, Greene LR, Howell MD, Lee G, et al. Strategies to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(Suppl 2):S133–54. Specifically examines evidence for VAP prevention in children and neonates.
Muszynski JA, Sartori J, Steele L, Frost R, Wang W, Khan N, et al. Multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative to reduce ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis in the PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2013;14(5):533–8. doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e31828a897f.
Bigham MT, Amato R, Bondurrant P, Fridriksson J, Krawczeski CD, Raake J, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in the pediatric intensive care unit: characterizing the problem and implementing a sustainable solution. J Pediatr. 2009;154(4):582–587.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.10.019.
Zhou Q, Lee SK, Jiang S, Chen C, Kamaluddeen M, Hu X, et al. Efficacy of an infection control program in reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia in a Chinese neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(11):1059–64. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2013.06.007.
Azab SFA, Sherbiny HS, Saleh SH, Elsaeed WF, Elshafiey MM, Siam AG, et al. Reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia in neonatal intensive care unit using “VAP prevention Bundle”: a cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:314. doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1062-1.
Davis KF, Colebaugh AM, Eithun BL, Klieger SB, Meredith DJ, Plachter N, et al. Reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections: a quality-improvement initiative. Pediatrics. 2014;134(3):e857–64. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-3470.
Patrick SW, Kawai AT, Kleinman K, Jin R, Vaz L, Gay C, et al. Health Care-Associated Infections Among Critically Ill Children in the US, 2007–2012. Pediatrics. 2014;134:705–12.
Weber DJ, Kanamori H, Rutala WA. ‘No touch’ technologies for environmental decontamination: focus on ultraviolet devices and hydrogen peroxide systems. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2016;29(4):424–31. doi:10.1097/QCO.0000000000000284.
Boyce J. Modern technologies for improving cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces at hospitals. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2016;5:10. doi:10.1186/s13756-016-0111-x.
Schmidt MG, Attaway HH, Sharpe PA, John J Jr, Sepkowitz KA, Morgan A, et al. Sustained reduction of microbial burden on common hospital surfaces through introduction of copper. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50:2217–23.
Schmidt MG, Attaway HH, Fairey SE, Steed LL, Michels HT, Salgado CD. Copper continuously limits the concentration of bacteria resident on bed rails within the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34:530–3.
Salgado CD, Sepkowitz KA, John JF, Cantey JR, Attaway HH, Freeman KD, et al. Copper surfaces reduce the rate of healthcare-acquired infections in the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34:479–86.
Mezoff EA, Fei L, Troutt M, Klotz K, Kocoshis SA, Cole CR. Ethanol lock efficacy and associated complications in children with intestinal failure. JPEN. 2016;40(6):815–9. doi:10.1177/0148607115574745.
Kawano T, Taji T, Onishi S, Yamada W, Nakame K, Mukai M, et al. Efficacy of ethanol locks to reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections for home parenteral nutrition pediatric patients: comparison of therapeutic treatment with prophylactic treatment. Pediatr Surg Int. 2016;32(9):863–7.
Landry DL, Jaber RA, Hanumanthappa N, Lipkowitz GS, O’Shea MH, Bermudez H, et al. Effects of prolonged ethanol lock exposure to carbothane- and silicone-based hemodialysis catheters: a 26-week study. J Vasc Access. 2015;16(5):367–71. doi:10.5301/jva.5000397.
Voor In ‘t Holt AF, Helder OK, Vos MC, Schafthuizen L, Sülz S, van den Hoogen A, et al. Antiseptic barrier cap effective in reducing central line-associated bloodstream infections: A systematic review and meta-analysia. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;69:34–40. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.007.
Rupp ME, Cavalieri RJ, Lyden E, Kucera J, Martin M, Fitzgerald T, et al. Effect of hospital-wide chlorhexidine patient bathing on healthcare-associated infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(11):1094–100. doi:10.1086/668024.
Derde LP, Dautzenberg MJ, Bonten MJ. Chlorhexidine body washing to control antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in intensive care units: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2012;28(6):931–9. doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2542-z.
Karki S, Cheng AC. Impact of chlorhexidine washcloths on healthcare-associated infections: do the recent trials add to the evidence? J Hosp Infect. 2013;84(3):266–7. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2013.04.006.
O’Horo JC, Silva GLM, Munoz-Price LS, Safdar N. The efficacy of daily bathing with chlorhexidine for reducing healthcare-associated bloodstream infections: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(3):257–67. doi:10.1086/664496.
Sievert D, Armola R, Halm MA. Chlorhexidine gluconate bathing: does it decrease hospital-acquired infections? Am J Crit Care. 2011;20(2):166–70. doi:10.4037/ajcc2011841.
Munoz-Price LS, Dezfulian C, Wyckoff M, Lenchus JD, Rosalsky M, Birnbach DJ, et al. Effectiveness of stepwise interventions targeted to decrease central catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(5):1464–9. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31823e9f5b.
Lopez AC. A quality improvement program combining maximal barrier precaution compliance monitoring and daily chlorhexidine baths resulting in decreased central line bloodstream infections. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2011;30(5):293–8. doi:10.1097/DCC.0b013e318227767f.
Montecalvo MA, McKenna D, Yarrish R, Mack L, Maguire G, Haas J, et al. Chlorhexidine bathing to reduce central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection: impact and sustainability. Am J Med. 2012;125(5):505–11. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.10.032.
Lee A, Harlan R, Breaud AR, Speck K, Perl TM, Clarke W, et al. Blood concentrations of chlorhexidine in hospitalized children undergoing daily chlorhexidine bathing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(4):395–7. doi:10.1086/659154.
Ritz J, Pashink B, Padula C, et al. Effectiveness of 2 methods of chlorhexidine bathing. J Nurs Care Qual. 2012;27(2):171–5. doi:10.1097/NCQ.0b013e3182398568.
Milstone AM, Elward A, Song X, Zerr DM, Orscheln R, Speck K, et al. Daily chlorhexidine bathing to reduce bacteraemia in critically ill children: a multicentre, cluster-randomized, crossover trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2013;381(9872):1099–106. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61687-0.
Climo MW, Yokoe DS, Warren DK, Perl TM, Bolon M, Herwaldt LA, et al. Effect of Daily Chlorhexidine Bathing on Hospital-Acquired Infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(6):533–42. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1113849.
Mendes ET, Ranzani OT, Marchi AP, de Silva MT, Filho JUA, Alves T, et al. Chlorhexidine bathing for the prevention of colonization and infection with multidrug-resistant microorganisms in a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation unit over a 9-year period. Medicine. 2016;95:46.
Lee YSH, Stone PW, Pogorzelska-Maziarz M, Nembhard IM. Differences in work environment for staff as an explanation for variation in central line bundle compliance in intensive care units. Health Care Manag Rev. 2016; doi:10.1097/HMR.0000000000000134.
Shaw SJ, Jacobs B, Stockwell DC, Futterman C, Spaeder MC. Effect of a Real-Time Pediatric ICU Safety Bundle Dashboard on Quality Improvement Measures. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015;41(9):414–20. doi:10.1016/S1553-7250(15)41053-0.
Pageler NM, Longhurst CA, Wood M, Cornfield DN, Suermondt J, Sharek PJ, et al. Use of electronic medical record-enhanced checklist and electronic dashboard to decrease CLABSIs. Pediatrics. 2014;133(3):e738–46. doi:10.1016/S1553-7250(15)41053-0.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Elizabeth H. Mack declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Christopher T. Stem declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights and informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mack, E.H., Stem, C.T. Prevention of CAUTIs, CLABSIs, and VAPs in Children. Curr Treat Options Peds 3, 221–235 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40746-017-0094-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40746-017-0094-8