Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:32:00.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Community Hospital Surgeon-Specific Infection Rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Caryl Collier ,
Donald P Miller  and
Marguerite Borst
Caryl Collier*
Affiliation:
Missouri Department of Health, Jefferson City, Missouri
Donald P Miller
Affiliation:
Missouri Department of Health, Jefferson City, Missouri
Marguerite Borst
Affiliation:
Missouri Department of Health, Jefferson City, Missouri
*
Nurse Epidemiologist, Bureau of Communicable Disease Control, Missouri Department of Health, PO Box 570, Jefferson City, MO 65102
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A one-year prospective study of surgeon-specific nosocomial infection rates was done in two community hospitals. Hospital A (93 beds) and Hospital B (158 beds) have nearly identical surgical staffs. Unified criteria for the diagnosis of infections, methods of data collection, and coding were used. Data were processed with an IBM 370 computer using Statistical Analysis System (SAS). Each surgeon received semiannual reports of 1) overall infection rate by site, 2) number of surgical wound infections by wound class and type of procedure, 3) pathogens for each deep and incisional infection, and 4) quarterly wound infection rates by wound class. Analysis of reports revealed high Class I surgical wound infection rates for both general and orthopedic surgeons. One person in each group had inordinately high infection rates. These data serve as an objective incentive to reduce surgical wound infections, identify individual problems, and suggest surgical privileges be evaluated by performance.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 8 , Issue 6 , June 1987 , pp. 249 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Haley, RW, Culver, DH, Morgan, WM, et al: Identifying patients at high risk of surgical wound infection. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121:206–215.Google Scholar
2.Farber, BF, Wenzel, RP: Postoperative wound infection rates: Results of prospective statewide surveillance. Am J Surg 1980; 140:343–346.Google Scholar
3.Coles, B, van Heerden, JA, Keys, TF, et al: Incident of wound infection for common general surgical procedures. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1982; 154:557–560.Google Scholar
4.Renvall, S, Niinikoski, J, Aho, AJ: Wound infection in abdominal surgery. Acta Chir Scand 1980; 146:25–30.Google Scholar
5.Wenzel, RP, Hunting, KJ, Osterman, CA: Postoperative wound infection rates. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1977; 144:749–752.Google Scholar
6.Cruse, PJE: Incidence of wound infection on the surgical services. Surg Clin North Am 1975; 55:1269–1275.Google Scholar
7.Olson, M, O'Connor, M, Schwartz, ML: Surgical wound infections. A 5 year prospective study of 20,193 wounds at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. Ann Surg 1984; 199:253–259.Google Scholar
8.Jarhult, J, Sandhammar, B: Postoperative infections in the small hospital. Acta Chir Scand 1980; 147:325–329.Google Scholar
9.Condon, RE, Schulte, WJ, Malangoni, MA, et al: Effectiveness of a surgical wound surveillance program. Arch Surg 1983; 118:303–307.Google Scholar
10.O'Malley, MK, Duignan, JP, Lavelle, JSR: The incidence of wound sepsis in a community hospital. Ir J Med Sci 1984; 153:123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Farber, BF, Kaiser, DL, Wenzel, RP: Relation between surgical volume and incidence of postoperative wound infection. N Engl J Med 1981; 305:200–204.Google Scholar
12.National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council, Division of Medical Sciences Ad Hoc Committee of the Committee on Trauma: Postoperative wound infection, the influence of ultraviolet irradiation of the operating room and of various other factors. Ann Surg 1964; 160(suppl 2): 1–192.Google Scholar
13.Haley, RW, Culver, DH, Morgan, WM, et al: Identifying patients at high risk of surgical wound infection. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121:206–225.Google Scholar
14.Richards, TA: Relation between surgical volume and postoperative wound infection, letter to the editor. N Engl J Med 1982; 306:178.Google Scholar
15.Grief, JM, Smith, AB: Relation between surgical volume and postoperative wound infection, letter to the editor. West J Med 1984; 140:99–100.Google Scholar
16.Cruse, PJE, Foord, R: A five-year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg 1973; 107:206–210.Google Scholar
17.Centers for Disease Control, SENIC Project: Algorithms for diagnosing infections. Am J Epidemiol 1980; 3:636–643.Google Scholar
18.Cruse, PJE, Foord, R: The epidemiology of wound infection. A ten year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am 1980; 60:27–40.Google Scholar
19.Borst, M, Collier, C, Miller, D: Operating room surveillance: A new approach in reducing hip and knee prosthetic wound infections. Am J Infect Control 1986; 14:161–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Bradley, S, Brown, R, Opitz, E, et al: Importance of post-discharge follow-up for documenting surgical wound infections. Abstract 127. Proceedings of the 13th Annual APIC Educational Conference, 1986.Google Scholar
21.Humble, T, Weigelt, J, Dryer, D, et al: Required duration of surgical wound surveillance. Abstract 126. Proceedings of the 13th Annual APIC Educational Conference, 1986.Google Scholar
22.Beyt, BE, Troxler, S, Cavaness, J: Prospective payment and infection control. Infect Control 1985; 6:161–164.Google Scholar