. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 31.

Published in final edited form as: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Feb;36(2):125–131. doi: 10.1017/ice.2014.42

Table 2. Comparison of 1,252 Incident Cases of Clostridium difficile Infection Using the National Healthcare Safety Network LabID Versus Traditional Surveillance C. difficile Events, Duke Infection Control Outreach Network, 2013^a.

	CDI LabID Events

Traditional CDI Surveillance Events	HO	CO-HCFA	CO	Recurrent	No. (%)
HO	310	0	0	1	311 (25)
CO-HCFA	26	153	0	2	181 (14)
CA	58	0	426	0	484 (39)
Indeterminate	14	3	121	2	140 (11)
Recurrent	12	13	17	77	119 (9.5)
Continuation	5	3	7	2	17 (1.4)
Total (%)	425 (34)	172 (14)	571 (46)	84 (6.7)	1252

Note. CDI, Clostridium difficile infection; LabID, laboratory identified; HO, hospital-onset CDI; CO-HCFA, community-onset–healthcare-facility-associated CDI; CO, community-onset CDI; CA, community-associated CDI.

Duplicate events were excluded from analysis because they are not counted as new events by the National Healthcare Safety Network.

Table 2. Comparison of 1,252 Incident Cases of Clostridium difficile Infection Using the National Healthcare Safety Network LabID Versus Traditional Surveillance C. difficile Events, Duke Infection Control Outreach Network, 2013a.

Table 2. Comparison of 1,252 Incident Cases of Clostridium difficile Infection Using the National Healthcare Safety Network LabID Versus Traditional Surveillance C. difficile Events, Duke Infection Control Outreach Network, 2013^a.