IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v19y2010i11-12p1560-1568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Infection probability score, APACHE II and KARNOFSKY scoring systems as predictors of infection onset in haematology–oncology patients

Author

Listed:
  • Eleni Apostolopolou
  • Vasilios Raftopoulos
  • Konstantinos Terzis
  • Kiriaki Pissaki
  • Maria Pagoni
  • Sossana Delibasi

Abstract

Aim. To assess the predictive power of three systems: Infection Probability Score, APACHE II and KARNOFSKY score to the onset of healthcare‐associated infections in haematology–oncology patients. Background. The high incidence of healthcare‐associated infections is a frequent problem in haematology–oncology patients that affects morbidity and mortality of these patients. Design. A retrospective surveillance survey. Method. The survey was conducted for seven months in the haematology unit of a general hospital in Greece to assess the predictive power of Infection Probability Score, APACHE II and KARNOFSKY score to the onset of healthcare‐associated infections. The sample consisted of 102 hospitalised patients. The diagnosis of healthcare‐associated infections was based on the definitions proposed by CDC. Results. Among the participants, 53 (52%) were males and 49 (48%) were females with a mean age of 53·30 (SD 18·59) years old (range, 17–85 years). The incidence density of healthcare‐associated infections (the number of new cases of healthcare‐associated infections per 1000 patient‐days) was 21·8 infections per 1000 patient‐days. Among the 102 patients, healthcare‐associated infections occurred in 32 (31·4%) patients who had a total of 48 healthcare‐associated infections (47·5%). Among the 38 patients with neutropenia, 26 (68·4%) had more than one healthcare‐associated infection. Of the 48 detected healthcare‐associated infections, the most frequent type was blood‐stream infection (n = 17, 35·4%), followed by Clostridium difficile infection (n = 11, 22·9%) and respiratory tract infection (n = 8, 3·4%). The best cut‐off value of Infection Probability Score (IPS) for the prediction of a healthcare‐associated infection was 10 with sensitivity of 59·4% and specificity of 74·3%. Conclusions. Between the three different prognostic scoring systems, IPS had the best sensitivity in predicting healthcare‐associated infections. Relevance to clinical practice. IPS is an effective tool and should be used from nurses for the early detection of haematology–oncology patients who are susceptible to the onset of a healthcare‐associated infection.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleni Apostolopolou & Vasilios Raftopoulos & Konstantinos Terzis & Kiriaki Pissaki & Maria Pagoni & Sossana Delibasi, 2010. "Infection probability score, APACHE II and KARNOFSKY scoring systems as predictors of infection onset in haematology–oncology patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(11‐12), pages 1560-1568, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:11-12:p:1560-1568
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03011.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03011.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03011.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:11-12:p:1560-1568. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.