Analysis of National Healthcare Safety Network Clostridioides difficile Infection Standardized Infection Ratio by Test Type

Abstract

Background: The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) has used positive laboratory tests for surveillance of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) LabID events since 2009. Typically, CDIs are detected using enzyme immunoassays (EIAs), nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), or various test combinations. The NHSN uses a risk-adjusted, standardized infection ratio (SIR) to assess healthcare facility-onset (HO) CDI. Despite including test type in the risk adjustment, some hospital personnel and other stakeholders are concerned that NAAT use is associated with higher SIRs than EIA use. To investigate this issue, we analyzed NHSN data from acute-care hospitals for July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018. Methods: Calendar quarters where CDI test type was reported as NAAT (includes NAAT, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)+NAAT and GDH+EIA followed by NAAT if discrepant) or EIA (includes EIA and GDH+EIA) were selected. HO-CDI SIRs were calculated for facility-wide inpatient locations. We conducted the following 2 analyses: (1) Among hospitals that did not switch their test type, we compared the distribution of HO incident rates and SIRs by those reporting NAAT versus EIA. (2) Among hospitals that switched their test type, we selected quarters with a stable switch pattern of 2 consecutive quarters of each of EIA and NAAT (categorized as EIA-to-NAAT or NAAT-to-EIA). Pooled semiannual SIRs for EIA and NAAT were calculated, and a paired t test was used to evaluate the difference in SIRs by switch pattern. Results: Most hospitals did not switch test types (3,242, 89%), and 2,872 (89%) reported sufficient data to calculate an SIR, with 2,444 (85%) using NAAT. The crude pooled HO CDI incidence rates for hospitals using EIAs clustered at the lower end of the histogram versus rates for NAATs (Fig. 1). The SIR distributions, both NAATs and EIAs, overlapped substantially and covered a similar range of SIR values (Fig. 1). Among hospitals with a switch pattern, hospitals were equally likely to have an increase or decrease in their SIRs (Fig. 2). The mean SIR difference for the 42 hospitals switching from EIA to NAAT was 0.048 (95% CI, −0.189 to 0.284; P = .688). The mean SIR difference for the 26 hospitals switching from NAAT to EIA was 0.162 (95% CI, −0.048 to 0.371; P = .124). Conclusions: The pattern of SIR distribution for both NAAT and EIA substantiate the soundness of the NHSN’s risk adjustment for CDI test types. Switching test type did not produce a consistent directional pattern in SIR that was statistically significant.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None