Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026

Culturing and Maintaining Clostridium difficile in an Anaerobic Environment
Published on: September 15, 2013
Clostridioides difficile surveillance: 9-year comparison between automated surveillance and conventional surveillance
Jean Stanciu1, Patrick Dolcé1, Charles Frenette2
1Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Centre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Bas-Saint-Laurent, Rimouski, QC, Canada.
Objective:
To develop and validate an automated surveillance system for healthcare-associated Clostridioides difficile infections (HA-CDI).
Design:
Multicenter cohort study.
Setting:
16 acute care hospitals.
Patients:
Patients admitted to participating hospitals between 2013 and 2022.
Methods:
An automated surveillance system was developed with retrospective extraction from admission/discharge/transfer and laboratory databases and compared with conventional surveillance based on clinical definitions collected prospectively by infection control professionals. Comparison of HA-CDI incidence rates calculated by automated vs conventional surveillances were performed with χ2, incidence rate ratios, and linear regression. A subset of discordant cases was further investigated by reviewing medical records.
Results:
Overall, conventional surveillance reported 3,211 cases of HA-CDI for an incidence rate of 4.94 per 10,000 patient-days. Automated surveillance detected 4,708 cases, for an incidence rate of 7.24 per 10,000 patient-days (incidence rate ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.40-1.53). Full concordance between both surveillance methods was observed in 62% of cases, while 34% of cases were detected only by automated surveillance, and 4% were detected by conventional surveillance only. Between 2013 and 2022, an identical declining trend in HA-CDI incidence rates of -0.54 cases per 10,000 patient-days was observed with both surveillance methods. A subset of 49 cases detected only by automated surveillance were reviewed; the main reasons for discrepancy were delayed testing (39%), colonization (24%), misclassifications (14%), and interinstitutional transfers (12%).
Conclusions:
HA-CDI incidence rates calculated by automated surveillance were higher than those of conventional surveillance, but the overestimation was consistent over time, suggesting that a correction factor could improve precision.
More Related Videos
12:58A Protocol to Characterize the Morphological Changes of Clostridium difficile in Response to Antibiotic Treatment
Published on: May 25, 2017
09:12A Protein Microarray Assay for Serological Determination of Antigen-specific Antibody Responses Following Clostridium difficile Infection
Published on: June 15, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
Principles of Disease Surveillance
Urinary Tract Infection III: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Automated Microbial Diagnostics