Automated surveillance of non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (nvHAP): a systematic literature review

Abstract

Background Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and its specific subset, non-ventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia (nvHAP) are significant contributors to patient morbidity and mortality. Automated surveillance systems for these healthcare-associated infections have emerged as a potentially beneficial replacement for manual surveillance. This systematic review aims to synthesise the existing literature on the characteristics and performance of automated nvHAP and HAP surveillance systems. Methods We conducted a systematic search of publications describing automated surveillance of nvHAP and HAP. Our inclusion criteria covered articles that described fully and semi-automated systems without limitations on patient demographics or healthcare settings. We detailed the algorithms in each study and reported the performance characteristics of automated systems that were validated against specific reference methods. Two published metrics were employed to assess the quality of the included studies. Results Our review identified 12 eligible studies that collectively describe 24 distinct candidate definitions, 23 for fully automated systems and one for a semi-automated system. These systems were employed exclusively in high-income countries and the majority were published after 2018. The algorithms commonly included radiology, leukocyte counts, temperature, antibiotic administration, and microbiology results. Validated surveillance systems' performance varied, with sensitivities for fully automated systems ranging from 40 to 99%, specificities from 58 and 98%, and positive predictive values from 8 to 71%. Validation was often carried out on small, pre-selected patient populations. Conclusions Recent years have seen a steep increase in publications on automated surveillance systems for nvHAP and HAP, which increase efficiency and reduce manual workload. However, the performance of fully automated surveillance remains moderate when compared to manual surveillance. The considerable heterogeneity in candidate surveillance definitions and reference standards, as well as validation on small or pre-selected samples, limits the generalisability of the findings. Further research, involving larger and broader patient populations is required to better understand the performance and applicability of automated nvHAP surveillance.