Debate: publicly reporting nosocomial infection rates



Over the past four years, 16 states – California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia-have enacted legislation requiring hospitals to be transparent about how well they prevent hospital-acquired infections. Nine other states-Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas, and Washington-are considering joining the pack of 16.

The question is: Will public reporting of this data result in reduced infection rates? Since these mandates are fairly new (although the laws have been enacted, public disclosure is not yet required), it's too soon to tell. But the debate continues.

On the one hand, proponents of transparency believe that public disclosure will spur doctors and hospitals to make systematic changes to reduce infection rates. Just look at the successful impact state mandates for coronary artery bypass graft outcomes have had on Medicare's Hospital Compare measures, supporters say.

"We don't have any perfect system for doing [public infection reporting], but I think the good thing that is coming out of different states is we are learning how to do better," Denise Cardo, MD, director of the CDC's Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, told American Medical News (4/16/2007).

Related Videos
Addressing racial and ethnic disparities in brachial plexus birth Injury | Image Credit:
Innovations in prenatal care: Insights from ACOG 2024 | Image Credit:
Unlocking therapeutic strategies for menopausal cognitive decline | Image Credit:
Navigating menopause care: Expert insights from ACOG 2024 | Image Credit:
raanan meyer, md
New data shows elinzanetant's efficacy in treating menopausal symptoms | Image Credit:
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.