Skip to main content

Healthcare-associated infections in Dutch hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic



During the COVID-19 pandemic hospitals reorganized their resources and delivery of care, which may have affected the number of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). We aimed to quantify changes in trends in the number of HAIs in Dutch hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.


National surveillance data from 2016 to 2020 on the prevalence of HAIs measured by point prevalence surveys, and the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) were used to compare rates between the pre-pandemic (2016–February 2020) and pandemic (March 2020–December 2020) period.


The total HAI prevalence among hospitalised patients was higher during the pandemic period (7.4%) compared to pre-pandemic period (6.4%), mainly because of an increase in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), gastro-intestinal infections (GIs) and central nervous system (CNS) infections. No differences in SSI rates were observed during the pandemic, except for a decrease after colorectal surgeries (6.3% (95%-CI 6.0–6.6%) pre-pandemic versus 4.4% (95%-CI 3.9–5.0%) pandemic). The observed CRBSI incidence in the pandemic period (4.0/1,000 CVC days (95%-CI 3.2–4.9)) was significantly higher than predicted based on pre-pandemic trends (1.4/1000 (95%-CI 1.0–2.1)), and was increased in both COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients at the intensive care unit (ICU).


Rates of CRBSIs, VAPs, GIs and CNS infections among hospitalised patients increased during the first year of the pandemic. Higher CRBSI rates were observed in both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ICU population. The full scope and influencing factors of the pandemic on HAIs needs to be studied in further detail.


When the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020 officially declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a global pandemic [1], COVID-19 hospitalisations in the Netherlands were already increasing rapidly. The high influx of patients impacted the critical care capacity, work processes, and availability and use of protective equipment in hospitals [2,3,4,5]. To handle the pressure and high demand of care during this crisis, hospitals reorganised their resources and delivery of care [6]. For example, elective surgeries were postponed or cancelled, intensive care unit (ICU) bed capacity was scaled up, the ratio of healthcare workers allocated to patients was reduced, external staff was hired, and changes to daily care routines, such as the frequency of patient washing, was reduced [7,8,9].

During this pandemic situation, attention to infection prevention and control (IPC) measures may have been deprived given the high work pressure, or redirected towards the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission [10]. In addition, patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are known for having comorbidities, long hospital stays and complex care with multiple invasive devices, putting them at higher risk for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) [11]. Hence, an increase of HAIs could be expected and is also reported by previous studies [12, 13]. On the other hand, hospitals applied strict, aggressive IPC measures to prevent within-hospital transmission of SARS-CoV-2. As a result, a positive (indirect) effect on HAI occurrence can be expected as well and has been reported by others [14,15,16].

Given these contrasting findings, there is need for adequate HAI reporting not limited to COVID-19 cohorts only, with sufficient historical data to allow pre-pandemic comparisons. The aim of this study was to quantify trends in the number of HAIs in Dutch hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic, using national surveillance that continued during the pandemic. Second, HAI types were compared between COVID-19 patients versus non-COVID-19 patients.


Study design and data sources

In this retrospective cohort study, data were derived from the Dutch national nosocomial surveillance network (PREZIES). In short, acute care hospitals voluntarily participate in one or more of the three surveillance modules targeting different HAIs: (1) bi-annually Point Prevalence Surveys (PPS) performed in March and October in which the prevalence of all type of HAIs are measured in all admitted patients (excluding patients admitted to psychiatry and day-care units), (2) Surgical site infection (SSI) incidence surveillance on targeted procedures (see Additional file 1: Table S1 for an overview of the procedures), and (3) hospital-wide catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) incidence surveillance in patients with a central venous catheter (CVC) in place for ≥ 48 h. For each module, infection control practitioners in each hospital manually review medical records retrospectively according to the national surveillance protocols and annotate which patients meet infection case definitions. The surveillance protocols and case definitions are based on the (European) Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and are described elsewhere [17,18,19]. Only in the PPS and CRBSI modules information was collected about whether the patient was admitted to the hospital due to COVID-19 (positive test at admission). Hospitals that reported their surveillance data yearly to PREZIES over the years 2016–2020 were included in this study and used to evaluate the infection rates during the pre-pandemic and pandemic period.

Definition pre-pandemic and pandemic period

Based on COVID-19 hospitalisation rates in the Netherlands, the PPS surveys of 2016–2019 were defined as pre-pandemic and the surveys of March and October 2020 were defined as the pandemic period. Data from the SSI and CRBSI modules were divided in pre-pandemic (January 2016 to February 2020) and pandemic (from 1st of March 2020 to December 2020).

Statistical analyses

Per module, patient-, surgery-, or CVC- related characteristics were reported and compared between the pre-pandemic and pandemic period, using a chi-square test for categorical variables and Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables. Thereafter, we quantified the number of HAIs during the pandemic. For PPS data, the difference in observed HAI rates between the pre-pandemic and pandemic period was tested using chi-square 2-tailed test with Yates’ correction.

For the SSI and CRBSI incidence, we estimated the expected infection rates for the pandemic period based on pre-pandemic data and compared this with the actual observed rates in the pandemic period. To estimate the expected incidence rate for SSI, the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (NNIS) risk index in pre-pandemic data was used to predict the risk of SSI for each NNIS category for the pandemic period (Additional file 1: Figure S1). The NNIS risk index, ranging from 0 to 3, is composed of 1 point for each of the following criteria: wound class classified as contaminated or infected; American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3, 4, or 5; and an operation duration above the 75th percentile [20]. The predicted infection rate was compared with the observed infection rate using a chi-square test. In addition, two sensitivity analyses for SSI were performed. First, the same analyses were repeated for deep SSI only, with the rationale that superficial SSIs may have been missed during follow-up in the pandemic period: patients avoided contact with healthcare providers afraid of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, patients did not want to be a burden on the system, and follow-up appointments were replaced by remote care because of stay-at-home orders [9]. Second, trends in SSI incidence rates were checked per surgical specialty. In case an increasing or decreasing trend was observed pre-pandemic, the expected SSI rate was recalculated based on 2019 data only. To estimate the expected CRBSI incidence per 1000 CVC days in the pandemic period, the mean pre-pandemic incidence per 1000 CVC days for each of the three application-based categories (total parenteral nutrition (TPN); dialysis; and the remaining other applications) was multiplied with the pandemic number of CVCs in each category (Additional file 1: Figure S1). The predicted and observed incidence rates were compared using a mid-P exact test. Last, differences in patient characteristics, medical device use, and HAIs were investigated in COVID-19 patients versus non-COVID-19 patients based on PPS and CRBSI data, by using a chi-square test or Mann–Whitney test. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).


Table 1 shows the number of hospitals participating in the three different modules, per year. The number of hospitals reporting PPS data during the pandemic year 2020 was less than half compared with previous years. Subsequent analyses were performed for the PPS, SSI, and CRBSI module, using data from 10, 51, and 11 hospitals respectively that reported their yearly surveillance data in 2016–2020 to PREZIES (Table 1). In these hospitals, the absolute annual number of admissions (PPS module) and surgeries (SSI module) was lower in 2020 compared to previous years, while there was a slight increase in the number of inserted CVCs (CRBSI module).

Table 1 Overview of hospitals included in this study

Healthcare-associated infections during the first pandemic year

Point prevalence survey results

During the pandemic period, a higher proportion of hospitalised patients was male, patients had slightly higher McCabe scores and more ICU admissions were observed (Table 2). The proportion of patients having a medical device increased during the pandemic period, in particular the use of CVCs. The proportion of patients with antibiotic treatment at the time of the survey was slightly higher during the pandemic (42.6%) versus pre-pandemic (37.7%; p < 0.01). The total HAI prevalence was higher during the pandemic period compared to pre-pandemic period, mainly because of an increase in gastro-intestinal infections and infections of the central nervous system (Tables 3, 4). The proportion of patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in the pandemic period was similar compared to pre-pandemic, however, a larger proportion was associated with mechanical ventilation (ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), 22.5% pandemic versus 13.5% pre-pandemic, Table 4).

Table 2 Patient-, surgery-, and central venous catheter characteristics
Table 3 Infection rates pre-pandemic, predicted infection rates during pandemic, and observed infection rates during the pandemic
Table 4 Distribution of healthcare-associated infections in pre-pandemic and pandemic PPS cohort

Surgical site infections

Within the SSI module, 217,212 surgeries were included in the pre-pandemic period versus 35,793 surgeries during the pandemic. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, patients operated during the pandemic period were more often of the male gender, had slightly higher ASA- and NNIS scores and had shorter hospital stays (Table 2). The observed SSI incidence for all type of surgeries combined in the pandemic period was significantly lower than predicted (1.8% versus 2.1%, respectively) (Fig. 1 and Table 3). When stratified by surgery type, only the SSI incidence after colon surgery was significantly lower during the pandemic (p < 0.01; Table 3). During 2016–2019, already a decreasing trend in SSI incidence after colorectal surgeries was observed (7.2%; 7.2%; 6.3%; 5.0%, respectively), while the proportion of closed procedures increased (p < 0.01, Additional file 1: Figure S2). When calculating the expected SSI incidence after colorectal surgery based on 2019 data only, the SSI rate in de pandemic was as predicted (predicted SSI rate: 5.1%; 95%-CI 4.5–5.8, observed SSI rate: 4.4%; 95%-CI: 3.9–5.0, p = 0.1). Sensitivity analysis comparing observed and expected incidence of deep SSI only showed similar results (Additional file 1: Table S2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Infection rates pre-pandemic, and predicted and observed infection rates during the pandemic period. HAIs healthcare-associated infections, PPS point prevalence survey, SSIs surgical site infections, RTIs respiratory tract infections, BSIs bloodstream infections, UTIs urinary tract infections, CRBSIs catheter-related bloodstream infections

Catheter-related bloodstream infections

During the pandemic period, patients with a CVC were slightly younger, more often of the male gender and more often admitted to the ICU compared to the pre-pandemic period. During the pandemic period, the number of inserted CVCs per patient was slightly higher and the CVC duration was longer. CVCs were more frequently used for antibiotics and hemodynamic monitoring and less often for TPN (Table 2). The observed CRBSI incidence of 4.0/1000 CVC days (95%-CI 3.2–4.9/1000) in the pandemic period was significantly higher than the predicted rate of 1.4/1000 CVC days (95%-CI 1.0–2.1/1000; p < 0.01) (Fig. 1).

Healthcare-associated infections within COVID-19 patients

Within the PPS module, COVID-19 status was only registered during the survey in October 2020: 50 (6.6%) patients were SARS-CoV-2 positive during admission and were compared with 713 (93.4%) non-COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients were more often admitted to the ICU, had more often medical devices and antibiotic use (Table 5). A significantly higher HAI prevalence was observed in this patient group as compared to non-COVID-19 patients (12% versus 0.4% respectively, p < 0.01), with bloodstream infections (BSI) as the most predominant manifestation (Additional file 1: Table S3).

Table 5 Differences in COVID-19 patients versus non-COVID patients admitted to the hospital, March 2020–December 2020

A total of 9 out of 11 hospitals participating in the CRBSI module reported whether the patient was admitted to the hospital due to COVID-19. These COVID-19 patients were more often male, were slightly younger in age, and had significant longer ICU length of stay compared to non-COVID-19 patients with a CVC during the pandemic period. In addition, COVID-19 patients had more CVCs inserted and with a longer duration (Table 5). The CVC was more often used for antibiotics and less for TPN compared to non-COVID-19 patients. The CRBSI incidence was 8.1/1000 CVC days (95%-CI 5.9–10.8) in COVID-19 patients compared to 3.4/1000 (95%-CI 2.2–5.0) in patients without COVID-19 (p < 0.01). When stratifying the COVID-19 patients to ICU and non-ICU, CRBSI rates were 7.8/1000 CVC days (95%-CI 5.6–10.7) and 11.1 (95%-CI 5.0–24.7) respectively. When stratifying the non-COVID-19 patients to ICU and non-ICU, CRBSI rates were 4.8/1000 CVC days (95%-CI 3.0–7.6) and 1.7 (95%-CI 0.7–4.0) respectively. The CRBSI incidence for non-COVID-19 patients in the ICU (4.8/1000) was significantly higher compared to pre-pandemic years (0.7/1000; 95%-CI 0.5–1.1) as well.


During the first pandemic year CRBSIs, VAPs, gastro-intestinal- and central nervous system infections occurred more frequently among hospitalised patients, while SSIs and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) rates remained stable. HAIs occurred more often in COVID-19 patients, however, in non-COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU an sevenfold increase of CRBSI was observed during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic as well.

Regarding SSI, less surgeries were performed in 2020 and the patients that have been operated had slightly higher ASA and NNIS scores compared to previous years, possibly explained by prioritising urgent procedures during the pandemic period. Although this patient population may be more likely to develop SSIs, no increase in incidence was observed. Remarkable is the relative high number of laparoscopic colon surgeries during the pandemic, which may be induced by policies to relieve ICU capacity and the shift to minimally invasive surgery to protect operating room personnel from SARS-CoV-2 aerosol transmission [21]. Future data will show whether open surgery had been replaced during the pandemic by closed surgery, or whether the open surgeries were postponed.

The findings of this study are in line with previous research: several studies reported increases during the pandemic in among others CRBSIs, BSIs, and VAPs [12, 13, 22,23,24,25]. The PPS data showed that the prevalence of LRTIs did not change, however the proportion of LRTIs associated with ventilation increased, likely due to the increased use of mechanical ventilation [26]. Importantly, the work pressure, burden and influx of COVID-19 patients was not constant throughout 2020: COVID-19 surges varied during the year, by region and by hospital [27]. Especially for the PPS, the timing of the surveys (March and October) may not have paralleled the COVID-19 surges and circumstances and therefore may have underestimated potential effects: we did not find any increase in CRBSIs or CAUTIs in the PPS data while this was reported by others [23, 24]. Within the CRBSI module, the number of CRBSI events was too low to perform sub-analyses to evaluate stronger effects on incidence rates during COVID-19 surges.

Most studies published so far are of variable quality as they are limited to retrospective cohort studies. Moreover, they focus solely on COVID-19 patients, and lack standardized case definitions without differentiating between settings or specialties [28]. The current surveillance-based study has a retrospective design as well and hospitals performed the surveillance themselves, however by using standardized case definitions and large sample sizes from a fixed number of hospitals for several years, the results of our study may be more robust. Still, with our study design, we cannot fully explain (causal) reasons for the change in HAIs observed during the pandemic. Several hypotheses are possible, probably all contributing to some degree. In part, the increase in HAIs can be explained by the fact that hospitalisations were dominated by COVID-19 patients who may have been more vulnerable for HAIs and other co-infections due to immune dysregulation [29,30,31,32]. This is also reflected by the high antibiotic use observed in these patients, which will increase risk of antibiotic resistance. In Germany, there was no ICU overcrowding due to COVID-19 patients because of their high ICU bed capacity as compared with the Netherlands, and no increase in device-associated infections was observed in this country [33]. In addition, COVID-19 patients in general are more exposed to known risk factors for HAIs such as longer durations of mechanical ventilation, higher number of CVCs inserted, corticosteroid treatment, prone positioning, and longer lengths of stay [24]. Although not observed within this study, the composition of characteristics of remaining non-COVID-19 hospitalised patients is likely to be different than pre-pandemic, due to numerous elective procedures that were cancelled and postponed. Unfortunately, within the surveillance modules we only have limited patient- and clinical information, restricting the adjustment for casemix. Although we used data of a fixed set of hospitals and used the NNIS score and CVC applications to calculate the expected infection rates, we may not have completely addressed the shift in characteristics of the patient population during the pandemic. The increased CRBSI incidence in non-COVID-19 ICU patients may indicate that both a change in patient mix or the reorganization of care, such as changed IPC practices, modified use of personal protective equipment, and additional (unskilled ICU) temporary staff, may have contributed to the increased infection risk [5, 16, 34, 35]. To fully explain HAI dynamics in pandemic circumstances indicators describing the local healthcare context at institutional level are needed, such as patient characteristics, disruption of IPC practices, prescribing- and (microbiological) order practices, and antimicrobial resistance patterns [36].


Summarized, we observed an increase in rates of CRBSI, VAP, gastro-intestinal- and central nervous system infections among hospitalised patients during the first pandemic year. Furthermore, CRBSI incidence was also increased in the non-COVID-19 ICU population during the pandemic. The full scope and driving factors of this change in HAIs need to be studied in more detail to be able to anticipate—from an infection prevention perspective—more adequately on future epidemics of COVID-19 or other severe acute respiratory infections.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available, however, researchers should submit a data request to PREZIES (



American Society of Anaesthesiologists


Bloodstream infection


Catheter-associated urinary tract infection


Catheter-related bloodstream infection


Coronavirus disease 2019


Central venous catheter


Intensive care unit


Infection prevention and control


Interquartile range


Gastro-intestinal infection


Healthcare-associated infection


Lower respiratory tract infections


Not applicable


National nosocomial infections surveillance system


Point prevalence survey


Respiratory tract infection


Surgical site infection


Total parenteral nutrition


Urinary tract infection


Ventilator-associated pneumonia


  1. Cucinotta D, Vanelli M. WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Bio-medica Atenei Parmensis. 2020;91(1):157–60.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ranney ML, Griffeth V, Jha AK. Critical supply shortages—the need for ventilators and personal protective equipment during the covid-19 pandemic. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18): e41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Danet DA. Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic in Western frontline healthcare professionals. A systematic review. Med Clin (Barc). 2021;156(9):449–58.

    Google Scholar 

  4. O’Connor RD, Barten DG, Latten GHP. Preparations of Dutch emergency departments for the COVID-19 pandemic: a questionnaire-based study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9): e0256982.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rebmann T, Alvino RT, Holdsworth JE. Availability and crisis standards of care for personal protective equipment during fall 2020 of the COVID-19 pandemic: a national study by the APIC COVID-19 task force. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(6):657–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Westra D, Tietschert M. De lessen die de zorg kán en móét leren van de COVID-19-pandemie. TSG Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen. 2020;98(3):122–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Levy JF, Wang KY, Ippolito BN, Ficke JR, Jain A. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on elective inpatient surgical admissions: evidence from Maryland. J Surg Res. 2021;268:389–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. van der Kooi T, et al. First COVID19 wave in Dutch hospitals: effects on central venous catheter care and distribution of bacteremia pathogens. Abstracts from the 6th international conference on prevention & infection control (ICPIC 2021). Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2021;10(1):130.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Impact van de eerste COVID-19 golf op de reguliere zorg en gezondheid. Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. Report No.: 2020-0183

  10. Palmore TN, Henderson DK. Healthcare-associated infections during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021;42(11):1372–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bicudo D, Batista R, Furtado GH, Sola A, Medeiros EA. Risk factors for catheter-related bloodstream infection: a prospective multicenter study in Brazilian intensive care units. Braz J Infect Dis. 2011;15(4):328–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Amarsy R, Trystram D, Cambau E, Monteil C, Fournier S, Oliary J, et al. Surging bloodstream infections and antimicrobial resistance during the first wave of COVID-19: a study in a large multihospital institution in the Paris region. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;114:90–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fakih MG, Bufalino A, Sturm L, Huang RH, Ottenbacher A, Saake K, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI): the urgent need to refocus on hardwiring prevention efforts. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022;43(1):26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wee LEI, Conceicao EP, Tan JY, Magesparan KD, Amin IBM, Ismail BBS, et al. Unintended consequences of infection prevention and control measures during COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(4):469–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cole J, Barnard E. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare acquired infections with multidrug resistant organisms. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(5):653–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Amarsy R, Pean de Ponfilly GR, Benmansour HA, Jacquier H, Cambau EE, Mégarbane B. Serratia marcescens outbreak in the intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic: a paradoxical risk? Medecine et maladies infectieuses. 2020;50(8):750–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Verberk JDM, Meijs AP, Vos MC, Schreurs LMA, Geerlings SE, de Greeff SC, et al. Contribution of prior, multiple-, and repetitive surgeries to the risk of surgical site infections in the Netherlands. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(11):1298–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Verberk JDM, van der Kooi TII, Derde LPG, Bonten MJM, de Greeff SC, van Mourik MSM. Do we need to change catheter-related bloodstream infection surveillance in the Netherlands? A qualitative study among infection prevention professionals. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8): e046366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hopmans TEM, Smid EA, Wille JC, van der Kooi TII, Koek MBG, Vos MC, et al. Trends in prevalence of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use in hospitals in the Netherlands: 10 years of national point-prevalence surveys. J Hosp Infect. 2020;104(2):181–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Haley RW, Culver DH, Morgan WM, White JW, Emori TG, Hooton TM. Identifying patients at high risk of surgical wound infection. A simple multivariate index of patient susceptibility and wound contamination. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;121(2):206–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Matta I, Laganà AS, Ghabi E, Bitar L, Ayed A, Petousis S, et al. COVID-19 transmission in surgical smoke during laparoscopy and open surgery: a systematic review. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2021:1–8.

  22. Baccolini V, Migliara G, Isonne C, Dorelli B, Barone LC, Giannini D, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare-associated infections in intensive care unit patients: a retrospective cohort study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2021;10(1):87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Baker MA, Sands KE, Huang SS, Kleinman K, Septimus EJ, Varma N, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on healthcare-associated infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;118:83–8.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Weiner-Lastinger LM, Pattabiraman V, Konnor RY, Patel PR, Wong E, Xu SY, et al. The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on healthcare-associated infections in 2020: a summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021:1–14

  25. Pérez-Granda MJ, Carrillo CS, Rabadán PM, Valerio M, Olmedo M, Muñoz P, et al. Increase in the frequency of catheter-related bloodstream infections during the COVID-19 pandemic: a plea for control. J Hosp Infect. 2022;119:149–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Maes M, Higginson E, Pereira-Dias J, Curran MD, Parmar S, Khokhar F, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhu N, Rawson TM, Mookerjee S, Price JR, Davies F, Otter J, et al. Changing patterns of bloodstream infections in the community and acute care across two COVID-19 epidemic waves: a retrospective analysis using data linkage. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;75(1):e1082–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Assi MA, Doll M, Pryor R, Cooper K, Bearman G, Stevens MP. Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on healthcare-associated infections: an update and perspective. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021:1–2

  29. Iwamura APD, Tavares da Silva MR, Hümmelgen AL, Soeiro Pereira PV, Falcai A, Grumach AS, et al. Immunity and inflammatory biomarkers in COVID-19: a systematic review. Rev Med Virol. 2021;31(4):e2199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bhatt K, Agolli A, Patel MH, Garimella R, Devi M, Garcia E, et al. High mortality co-infections of COVID-19 patients: mucormycosis and other fungal infections. Discoveries (Craiova, Romania). 2021;9(1):e126-e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. The Lancet. 2020;395(10223):497–506.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kumar G, Adams A, Hererra M, Rojas ER, Singh V, Sakhuja A, et al. Predictors and outcomes of healthcare-associated infections in COVID-19 patients. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;104:287–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Geffers C, Schwab F, Behnke M, Gastmeier P. No increase of device associated infections in German intensive care units during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2022;11(1):67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosenthal VD, Myatra SN, Divatia JV, Biswas S, Shrivastava A, Ruzzieh MAA, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on healthcare-associated infections in intensive care units in low and middle income countries: International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) findings. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;118:83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fakih MG, Sturm LK, Thyagarajan RV, Mondy KE. Is it time for us to account for the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on healthcare-associated infections? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021:1-2

  36. Zhu N, Rawson T, Ahmad R, Price JR, Gilchrist M, Singh SK, et al. A surveillance framework for healthcare associated infections and antimicrobial resistance in acute care in the context of COVID-19: a rapid literature review and expert consensus. 2021.

Download references



Author information

Authors and Affiliations



JV conceptualized and designed the study, wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and coordinated the analysis and interpretation of data. TK, NK and NR were responsible for the data management, analyses and interpretation. SvR, TH, SG, and SdG reviewed the manuscript for intellectual content and scientific integrity. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Janneke D. M. Verberk or Sabine C. de Greeff.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

According to the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, ethical approval and informed consent were not required for this retrospective study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

 Supplementary Figures and Tables.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verberk, J.D.M., van der Kooi, T.I.I., Kampstra, N.A. et al. Healthcare-associated infections in Dutch hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 12, 2 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: