A systematic review of digital healthcare-associated infection surveillance methods - comparisons and considerations for future program design.

In 30 seconds

This systematic review examined original hospital-based research on digital healthcare-associated infection (HAI) surveillance, identifying clinical and technical design elements and reported impacts. Forty-seven studies met the eligibility criteria; most came from Europe (N = 28) or the USA (N = 10). Systems commonly included features for detection, validation, automation and data integration, and some studies reported improved surveillance efficiency. However, outcome reporting was heterogeneous, patient impact and implementation were rarely evaluated, and integration into routine clinical practice was seldom described. The review concludes that evidence is insufficient to determine which design approaches provide the greatest clinical value.

Key findings

• Forty-seven studies were included; 28 were from Europe and 10 from the USA.
• Digital systems commonly used features for detection, validation, automation and data integration.
• Some studies reported improved surveillance efficiency, but HAI outcome reporting was heterogeneous.
• Patient impact, implementation, sustainability and integration into routine clinical practice were rarely evaluated.

Why it matters

Digital surveillance may reduce the workload associated with manual HAI monitoring, but efficiency alone does not establish benefit for patients or infection prevention practice. The review highlights a gap between system development and evidence of clinical integration or improved outcomes. Evaluating implementation and patient-centred outcomes is important for judging whether digital approaches deliver meaningful clinical value.

What to keep in mind

The review found heterogeneous outcome reporting and limited evaluation of patient impact, implementation and sustainability, restricting comparisons between systems and assessment of clinical value.