Abstract
AbstractTo choose a microcomputer software package for our hospital epidemiology division, the two leading commercial software packages for infection control, AICE (ICPA, Inc., Austin, Texas) and NOSO- (Epi Systematics, Inc., Ft. Meyers, Florida), were compared for the types of epidemiologic analysis likely to be required to satisfy new Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) 1990 Infection Control Standards. The test dataset was a surgical database of 3,235 operations with 292 (9%) wound infections. Though NOSO- was more flexible in terms of the amount of data items one could record, it required seven times longer to learn, nine times more disk space to store and two times as long to enter cases than AICE. Six simple infection control reports (i.e., line listings, crosstabulations, stratified rates and graphs) required only seven computing steps and approximately 11 minutes to process with AICE, but 22 steps and over two hours with NOSO-3. All analytic results from AICE agreed with the results obtained with the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina), but analyses such as service-specific rates performed with NOSO- differed because of a design flaw in the NOSO- data structure.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
