Using approximate Bayesian computation to estimate transmission rates of nosocomial pathogens

In this paper, we apply a simulation based approach for estimating transmission rates of nosocomial pathogens. In particular, the objective is to infer the transmission rate between colonised health-care practitioners and uncolonised patients (and vice versa) solely from routinely collected incidence data. The method, using approximate Bayesian computation, is substantially less computer intensive and easier to implement than likelihood-based approaches we refer to here. We find through replacing the likelihood with a comparison of an efficient summary statistic between observed and simulated data that little is lost in the precision of estimated transmission rates. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of incorporating uncertainty in previously fixed parameters on the precision of the estimated transmission rates.

The human dimension of nosocomial wound infection : a study in liminality

Nosocomial wound infection is a disease that has to date been primarily understood through the language of science and biomedicine. This paper reports on findings from a sociological, interpretive study that focused on the experiential dimension of this phenomenon. The illness experience of a nosocomial wound infection is examined within a cultural milieu that values the smooth, untroubled body and alternatively ascribes cultural meaning to a body that has a definable illness. Within this context the person with a chronic wound from nosocomial infection defies normative categorisation and is thus situated outside the patterning of society. The human dimension of nosocomial wound infection includes the private, existential and embodied aspects of living with a chronic, infected wound. This report indicates that the experiential dimension is characterised by an embodied state of liminality. People with this illness live an indeterminate existence that is in-between health and illness, cure and disease. As such they have no recognised place in the medical or social world.

Likelihood‐free inference for transmission rates of nosocomial pathogens

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Case study: Estimating transmission rates of nosocomial pathogens Models and methods Data analysis and results Discussion References

Interventions to control nosocomial infections : study designs and statistical issues

There is a wide range of potential study designs for intervention studies to decrease nosocomial infections in hospitals. The analysis is complex due to competing events, clustering, multiple timescales and time-dependent period and intervention variables. This review considers the popular pre-post quasi-experimental design and compares it with randomized designs. Randomization can be done in several ways: randomization of the cluster [intensive care unit (ICU) or hospital] in a parallel design; randomization of the sequence in a cross-over design; and randomization of the time of intervention in a stepped-wedge design. We introduce each design in the context of nosocomial infections and discuss the designs with respect to the following key points: bias, control for nonintervention factors, and generalizability. Statistical issues are discussed. A pre-post-intervention design is often the only choice that will be informative for a retrospective analysis of an outbreak setting. It can be seen as a pilot study with further, more rigorous designs needed to establish causality. To yield internally valid results, randomization is needed. Generally, the first choice in terms of the internal validity should be a parallel cluster randomized trial. However, generalizability might be stronger in a stepped-wedge design because a wider range of ICU clinicians may be convinced to participate, especially if there are pilot studies with promising results. For analysis, the use of extended competing risk models is recommended.

Multilevel competing risk models to evaluate the risk of nosocomial infection

Introduction Risk factor analyses for nosocomial infections (NIs) are complex. First, due to competing events for NI, the association between risk factors of NI as measured using hazard rates may not coincide with the association using cumulative probability (risk). Second, patients from the same intensive care unit (ICU) who share the same environmental exposure are likely to be more similar with regard to risk factors predisposing to a NI than patients from different ICUs. We aimed to develop an analytical approach to account for both features and to use it to evaluate associations between patient- and ICU-level characteristics with both rates of NI and competing risks and with the cumulative probability of infection. Methods We considered a multicenter database of 159 intensive care units containing 109,216 admissions (813,739 admission-days) from the Spanish HELICS-ENVIN ICU network. We analyzed the data using two models: an etiologic model (rate based) and a predictive model (risk based). In both models, random effects (shared frailties) were introduced to assess heterogeneity. Death and discharge without NI are treated as competing events for NI. Results There was a large heterogeneity across ICUs in NI hazard rates, which remained after accounting for multilevel risk factors, meaning that there are remaining unobserved ICU-specific factors that influence NI occurrence. Heterogeneity across ICUs in terms of cumulative probability of NI was even more pronounced. Several risk factors had markedly different associations in the rate-based and risk-based models. For some, the associations differed in magnitude. For example, high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores were associated with modest increases in the rate of nosocomial bacteremia, but large increases in the risk. Others differed in sign, for example respiratory vs cardiovascular diagnostic categories were associated with a reduced rate of nosocomial bacteremia, but an increased risk. Conclusions A combination of competing risks and multilevel models is required to understand direct and indirect risk factors for NI and distinguish patient-level from ICU-level factors.