This creates two obvious results. 1) suppression of legitimate claims from relatives, and 2) suppression of valid concern and pressure for govt action such as increased research funding.
How is this good?
I don't think hospitals have any motivation to hide antibiotic-resistant infections ("superbugs") specifically. HOWEVER, the motive to hide hospital-acquired infections[0] is clear!
Here's some mud in the water: what's the difference between a HAI with some bug that is easily killed by antibiotics vs. an antibiotic resistant bug?
As for "tracking it in secret", that's one way to put it, but it will cloud your thinking. :) Your own medical records--specifically blood test lab results--have your name, address, and phone number on them. Consider replacing the word 'secret' with 'private' and re-working the whole thought.
Then you agree with the article that "the motive to hide hospital-acquired infections is clear".
Uhh... That's kind of a huge problem.
I stand by my assertion that nobody is trying to "hide" the "superbug" problem.
The human tendency to not self-report failures is a thing. But it's not some kind of biohazard conspiracy.
And one more thing about the death certificates...
> In a statement emailed to Reuters, Frieden said:
> "While death certificates provide helpful
> information, the unfortunate reality is that they
> don't provide in-depth clinical information."
But the article sure makes it sound like hospitals are hiding MRSA-related deaths, since MRSA infections are often "hospital acquired". And we all agree that hospitals would have an incentive to hide these numbers.
And the apparent under-reporting seems to indicate that this is in fact what's going on. This sounds like a problem! Thanks a lot, dishonest hospitals!
> There’s also a powerful incentive not to mention a hospital-acquired infection: Counting deaths is tantamount to documenting your own failures. By acknowledging such infections, hospitals and medical professionals risk potentially costly legal liability, loss of insurance reimbursements and public-relations damage.
It's the hiding it in public records such as Death Certificates, information given to the family, and performance statistics that I find suspicious.
Actually I have all sorts of examples of the above, but the point is that oftentimes the data is "corrupted" on the way to the collection point(s). Anyways, the executive (VP of some bullshit) got his walking papers and funnily enough, no more reportable line infections that didn't come from lines.
So at least sometimes there are happy endings, sort of...
Reporting incorrect data can be worse than reporting nothing at all. Here are the guidelines: http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/faqs/faqs-v-6_clabsi.pdf
CLIs are only supposed to be reported when the central line can reasonably be implicated as the vector and the blood is the primary infection site. Neither was established.
As far as cleaning up procedures, there will always be room for further improvement, but that's no reason to accept a $2 million fine (which still had to be paid) as a cost of doing business when the "root cause" was incorrect reporting.