Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:39:56.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Two Retrospective Active Surveillance Methods for the Detection of Nosocomial Infection in Surgical Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Cristina Belío-Blasco ,
M. Antonia Torres-Fernández-Gil ,
J. Lorenzo Echeverría-Echarri  and
Luis I. Gómez-López
Cristina Belío-Blasco*
Affiliation:
Services of Preventive Medicine, Hospital San Millán, Logroño, Spain
M. Antonia Torres-Fernández-Gil
Affiliation:
Services of Preventive Medicine, Hospital San Millán, Logroño, Spain
J. Lorenzo Echeverría-Echarri
Affiliation:
Medical Documentation, Hospital San Millán, Logroño, Spain
Luis I. Gómez-López
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
*
Service of Preventive Medicine, Hospital San Millán, Autonomía de la Rioja 3, E-26004 Logroño, La Rioja, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the sensitivity and specificity of two retrospective active surveillance methods based on review of the medical record and review of the discharge form in identifying nosocomial infection, taking the prospective surveillance method as the reference standard.

Design:

Blind comparison of three active nosocomial infection surveillance methods.

Setting:

Department of General Surgery of a tertiary-care hospital with a referral population of 266,000 people.

Methods:

All operated patients admitted to the Department of Surgery for more than 24 hours and discharged from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1994, were included. Prospective surveillance consisted of daily review of the patient's record during hospitalization. Retrospective surveillance consisted of review of the medical record and the discharge form. Sensitivity and specificity of both retrospective methods were calculated.

Results:

Of the 1,514 patients included in the study, 1,476 (97.5%) were reviewed by means of the retrospective surveillance system. A total of 20, 8, and 4 hours per week was needed for the active prospective system, review of the medical record, and review of the hospital discharge form, respectively. The documented cumulative incidence of nosocomial infection was 21.8% for the prospective system, 19.6% for review of the medical record, and 12.6% for review of the discharge form. The overall sensitivity of review of the medical record was 88% and of the discharge form 56%, with a specificity of 99%. For review of the medical record, the highest sensitivity was 93%, for urinary tract infections; for review of the discharge form, the highest was 57%, for surgical-wound infection.

Conclusions:

The retrospective method of review of the medical record was the most efficient active surveillance strategy in detecting nosocomial infection in surgical patients

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 24 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2000

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.Perl, TM. Surveillance, reporting, and the use of computers. In: Wenzel, RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. London, UK: Williams & Wilkins, 1987:139–176.Google Scholar
2.Haley, RW, Gaynes, RP, Aber, RC, Bennett, JV. Surveillance of nosocomial infections. In: Bennett, JV, Brachman, PS, eds. Hospital Infections. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co, 1992:79–108.Google Scholar
3.Bartlett, CLR, Efficacy of different surveillance systems in detecting hospital-acquired infections. Chemioterapia 1987;6:152–155.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Eickhoff, TC, Brachman, PW, Bennett, JV, Brown, JF. Surveillance of nosocomial infections in community hospitals, I: surveillance methods, effectiveness, and initial results. J Infect Dis 1969;120:305–317.Google Scholar
5.Freeman, J, McGowan, JE Jr. Methodologie issues in hospital epidemiology, I: rates, case-finding, and interpretation. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:658–667.Google Scholar
6.Abrutyn, E, Talbot, GH. Surveillance strategies: a primer. Infect Control 1987;8:459–464.Google Scholar
7.Frey, KA, Briggs, J, Broadhead, WE. Postdischarge, postoperative nosocomial infection surveillance using random sampling. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:383–385.Google Scholar
8.Weigelt, JA, Dryer, D, Haley, RW. The necessity and efficiency of wound surveillance after discharge. Arch Surg 1992;127:77–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Birnbaum, D, King, LA. Disadvantages of infection surveillance by medical record chart review. Am J Infect Control 1981;9:15–17.Google Scholar
10.Haley, RW, Schaberg, DR, McClish, DK, Quade, D, Crossley, KB, Culver, DH, et al. The accuracy of retrospective chart review in measuring nosocomial infection rates. Results of validation studies in pilot hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:516–533.Google Scholar
11. Ministry of Health. Orden Ministerial (20915) de 6 de septiembre de 1984 por la que se regula la obligatoriedad del informe de alta. Boletín Oficial del Estado. Gaceta de Madrid, Spain. September 14, 1984; 221:26685–26686.Google Scholar
12.National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Postoperative wound infections: the influence of ultraviolet irradiation of the operating room and of various other factors. Ann Surg 1964;160(suppl 2):1–132.Google Scholar
13.Nichols, RL. Classification of the surgical wound: a time for reassessment and simplification. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:253–254.Google Scholar
14.Keats, AS. The ASA classification of physical status. A recapitulation. Anesthesiology 1978;49:233–236.Google Scholar
15.Owens, WD, Felts, JA, Spitznagel, EL Jr.ASA physical status classification: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 1978;49:239–243.Google Scholar
16.Culver, DH, Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Martone, WJ, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):152S–157S.Google Scholar
17.Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128–140.Google Scholar
18.Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Martone, WJ, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:606–608.Google Scholar
19.Birnbaum, D, Sheps, SB. Validation of new tests. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12:622–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Saenz Gonzalez, MC, Rodrigo, N, Gutiérrez, JL, Valero, J, Nuftez, JC, Meléndez, D. Incidencia de la infectión hospitalaria en un hospital universitario. Med Clin (Bare) 1989;92;213–216.Google Scholar
21.Scheckler, WE, Peterson, PJ. Nosocomial infections in 15 rural Wisconsin hospitals—results and conclusions from 6 months of comprehensive surveillance. Infect Control 1989;7:397–402.Google Scholar
22.Landry, SL, Donowitz, LG, Wenzel, RP.Hospital-wide surveillance: perspective for the practitioner. Am J Infect Control 1982;10:66–67.Google Scholar
23.Holzheimer, RG, Quoika, P, Pätzmann, D, Füssle, R.Nosocomial infections in general surgery: surveillance report from a German university clinic. Infection 1990;18:219–225.Google Scholar
24.Vitella, A, Prat, A, Bare, M, Bayas, JM, Asenjo, MA, Salleras, L. Riesgo de infección nosocomial de los pacientes ancianos ingresados en un hospital universitario. Med Clin (Bare) 1993;100:128–131.Google Scholar
25.Carrasco, M, Delgado, A, Fernández, C, Prieto Valiente, L, Jimeno Maestro, J, Andradas Aragonés, E. Vigilancia epidemiológica de la infección hospitalaria. Análisis preliminar de una serie de cinco años. Med Clin (Bare) 1990;95:201–206.Google Scholar
26.De Juan García, S, González Monte, C, Pinazo Murria, M, Prats Fornell, J, Escoms Trullenque, R, Piqueras Altabella, M, et al. Infecciones nosocomiales múltiples. Un estudio de incidencia. Med Clin (Bare) 1996;107:41–44.Google Scholar
27.Brawley, RL, Weber, DJ, Samsa, GRRutala, WA. Multiple nosocomial infections. An incidence study. Am J Epidemiol 1989;130:769–780.Google Scholar
28.Cruse, PJE, Foord, R. The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am 1980;60:27–40.Google Scholar
29.Cruse, P. Wound infection surveillance. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:734–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Cainzos, M, Lozano, J, Balibrea, JL, Dávila, D, Potei, J, Gómez Alonso, A, et al. La infección postoperatoria: estudio multicéntrico prospective y controlado. Cir Esp 1990;48:481–490.Google Scholar
31.Narbona, B, Dávila, D. Frecuencia de la infección quirúrgica en cirugía digestiva. Estudio de 15.936 heridas en el Servicio de Cirugía General B del Hospital General de Valencia. Cir Esp 1987;62:214–223.Google Scholar
32.Gil-Egea, MJ, Pi-Sunyer, MT, Verdaguer, A, Sanz, F, Sitges-Serra, A, Torre Eleizegui, L. Surgical wound infections: prospective study of 4,468 clean wounds. Infect Control 1987;8:277–280.Google Scholar
33.Rabanaque, J. Análisis de Costos de la Infección Nosocomial. Zaragoza, Spain: University of Zaragoza; 1992. Thesis.Google Scholar
34.Freeman, J, McGowan, JE Jr.Methodologie issues in hospital epidemiology, II: time and accuracy in estimation. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:668–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Delgado-Rodríguez, M, Medina Cuadros, M, Martínez Gallego, O, Fariñas Alvarez, C, Sillero Arenas, M. Frecuencia de la vigilancia de la infección nosocomial en cirugía. Med Clin (Bare) 1997;108:171–174.Google Scholar
36.Lizan-Garcia, M, García-Caballero, J, Asensio-Vegas, A. Risk factors for surgical-wound infection in general surgery: a prospective study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:310–315.Google Scholar
37.Egoz, N, Michaeli, D. A program for surveillance of hospital-acquired infections in a general hospital: a two-year experience. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:649–657.Google Scholar
38.Britt, MR, Schleupner, CJ, Matsumiya, S. Severity of underlying disease as a predictor of nosocomial infection. Utility in the control of nosocomial infection. JAMA 1978;239:1047–1051.Google Scholar
39.Delgado-Rodríguez, M, Cueto-Espinar, A, Rodríguez-Contreras, R, Gálvez-Vargas, R. Quantification of risk factors in hospital infection at a surgical service. Eur J Epidemiol 1988;4:235–241.Google Scholar
40.Zoutman, D, Pearce, P, McKenzie, M, Taylor, G. Surgical wound infections occurring in day surgery patients. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:277–282.Google Scholar
41.Wenzel, RP, Osterman, CAHunting, KJ, Gwaltney, JM Jr. Hospital-acquired infections, I: surveillance in a university hospital. Am J Epidemiol 1976;103:251–260.Google Scholar
42.Costel, EE, Mitchell, S, Kaiser, AB. Abbreviated surveillance of nosocomial urinary tract infections: a new approach. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1985;6:11–13.Google Scholar
43.Simchen, E, Wax, Y, Pevsner, B, Erda], M, Michel, J, Modan, M, et al. The Israeli study of surgical infections (ISSI), I: methods for developing a standardized surveillance system for a multicenter study of surgical infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988;9:232–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Massanari, RM, Wilkerson, K, Streed, SA, Hierholzer, WJ Jr. Reliability of reporting nosocomial infections in the discharge abstract and implications for receipt of revenues under prospective reimbursement. Am J Public Health 1987;77:561–564.Google Scholar
45.Freeman, J, McGowan, JE Jr. Risk factors for hospital infection. J Infect Dis 1978;138:811–819.Google Scholar
46.Glenister, H, Taylor, L, Bartlett, C, Cooke, M, Sedgwick, J, Leigh, D. An assessment of selective surveillance methods for detecting hospital-acquired infection. Am J Med 1991;91 (suppl 3B):121S–124S.Google Scholar