To conclude the ACIPC conference in Melbourne this year, three different views were proposed for what the national national HAI initiative should be. Dr Phil Russo presented a case for national surveillance, while Prof Linsday Grayson presented a case for peripheral vascular devices. I had the job of presenting a case for CAUTI.
The debate allowed 15 mintes each for us to present, followed by a panel discussion, discusion and questions from the floor, in addition to questions from Twitter (for those not present but following online).
Following some great questions, humour and some lively discussion, in the end, Phil won the debate, with 50%, followed by peripheral vascular devices (30%) and CAUTI (20%). It was clear however, that all three projects had 
support and it was strongly suggested that all three be implemented with the next 5 years.
I did make a good come back, scoring up from a prepoll of 6%!
If you would like to see the CAUTI presentation I delivered, here it is: ACIPC presentation: Next national HAI Initiative, CAUTI or in pdf format here
Brett
Disclosure: BM was the Scientific Chair or ACICP 2016, PR was on the scientific committee.
I’m not a fan of UTI surveillance. I truly believe we should be targeting more significant outcomes, such as bacteraemia, rather than CAUTI. Yes, we need to manage IDUC’s better than we do, but to have to investigate all positive urine cultures to determine which might be catheter-associated is a LOT of work. Especially when this is done manually, as it is in many facilities still. If we stick with investigating all positive blood cultures, and determine those catheter-associated, I think we get more bang for our buck. Notwithstanding Brett’s outstanding presentation and passion, that remains my view.
LikeLike
Good work Brett, sometimes it is the simple things that count…
LikeLike
Pingback: #ACIPC16 Melbourne | Infection Prevention & Control Consortium Australia