No abstract

We appreciate the review of our article 1 and would like to clarify and respond to the questions raised. First, the reviewer has calculated a postintervention methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection rate of 0.1574 per 1,000 patient-days from our study data and implied that our rate of control was unrealistic given data reported in the literature. It is unclear to us how this estimate was derived. We reported a reduction of 0.114 infections per 1,000 patient-days based on the 23-unit baseline rate of 0.381 and the postintervention rate of 0.267. Our postintervention rates were 0.47 and 0.20 for intensive care units and nonintensive care units, respectively, whereas, Jain et al 2 reported rates of 0.62 and 0.26, respectively. Given that Jain et al 2 reported rates from 2007-2010 and our rates are from 2012-2015, it would be expected that rates from the more current timeframe would be lower. Even with this caveat, our rates are statistically comparable to that of Jain et al. 2 Second, the reviewer compared our data on "health careassociated MRSA infections," which were identified using the National Healthcare Safety Network surveillance criteria, to "labidentified MRSA bloodstream infections" presented on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare Web site. In addition to comparing different types of infection, the respondent compares 2 distinctive sources of data (eg, underlying numerators/ denominators) and incongruent timeframes. We reported on 23 of 28 units in our hospital (not all units), and each unit had differing before and after time frames with regard to the improvement initiative (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are by calendar year). The majority of our units had the electronic monitoring installed and operational by July 2012; however, each unit had differing baseline and intervention quarters depending on the timing of education or engagement with the unit leadership.Other questions raised related to "conflict of interest" and registration of our study on ClinicalTrials.gov. The conflict of interest statement was inadvertently left off the prepublication galley proof, but was included in the final publication. It states that the study