Exploring the reporting process on the incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in long-term mechanically ventilated patients

Abstract

Background Infection prevention and control of hospital-associated complications like Ventilator-associated Pneumonia are vital to patient safety in hospitals. Accurate Ventilator-associated Pneumonia reporting processes are necessary to understand the success or challenges in preventative nursing practices. Accurate and up to date record keeping and reporting is a well-defined legal requirement of quality nursing care and regulated by the documented Scope of Practice defined by the South African Nursing Council (SANC) (South African Nursing Council, 2005. Nursing Act No 33. [Online]

Objectives The objectives of this study are to explore and describe the reporting processes of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia incidents as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines by combining the electronic information available using hospital information technology software systems used in the hospital, namely SAP (Hospital controlling with SAP system solution, 2019) and Bluebird (Bluebird: Home, 2019).

Methods A quantitative observational retrospective research design was followed. The reports on Ventilator-associated Pneumonia incidents during a specific period of adult mechanically ventilated patients were collected from the Bluebird System and compared with a manual process and samples collected from the SAP system, using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. The comparison was made using the guidelines provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine the incidence of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia.

Results The difference in the sample size was twenty-six from Bluebird and sixty-one from the SAP system, although both the samples were collected using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as Ventilator-associated Pneumonia rate guideline provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Bluebird System reported a Ventilator-associated Pneumonia rate of 0.0 per 1000 mechanically ventilated days and the calculated Ventilator-associated Pneumonia rate from the second sample was 3.2 per 1000 mechanically ventilated days.

Conclusion Although Information Technology solutions are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to understand and manage hospital-associated incidents like Ventilator-associated Pneumonia, incomplete clinical data suggest that the resulting reports of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia rates should be investigated, focusing on the processes responsible for populating these data fields.