Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Incidence of surgical site infections cannot be derived reliably from point prevalence survey data in Dutch hospitals

  • A. P. MEIJS (a1), J. A. FERREIRA (a2), S. C. DE GREEFF (a1), M. C. VOS (a3) and M. B. G. KOEK (a1)...

Summary

Thorough studies on whether point prevalence surveys of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) can be used to reliably estimate incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) are scarce. We examined this topic using surveillance data of 58 hospitals that participated in two Dutch national surveillances; HAI prevalence and SSI incidence surveillance, respectively. First, we simulated daily prevalences of SSIs from incidence data. Subsequently, Rhame & Sudderth's formula was used to estimate SSI incidence from prevalence. Finally, we developed random-effects models to predict SSI incidence from prevalence and other relevant variables. The prevalences simulated from incidence data indicated that daily prevalence varied greatly. Incidences calculated with Rhame & Sudderth's formula often had values below zero, due to the large number of SSIs occurring post-discharge. Excluding these SSIs, still resulted in poor correlation between calculated and observed incidence. The two models best predicting total incidence and incidence during initial hospital stay both performed poorly (proportion of explained variance of 0·25 and 0·10, respectively). In conclusion, incidence of SSIs cannot be reliably estimated from point prevalence data in Dutch hospitals by any of the applied methods. We therefore conclude that prevalence surveys are not a useful measure to give reliable insight into incidence of SSIs.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Incidence of surgical site infections cannot be derived reliably from point prevalence survey data in Dutch hospitals
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Incidence of surgical site infections cannot be derived reliably from point prevalence survey data in Dutch hospitals
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Incidence of surgical site infections cannot be derived reliably from point prevalence survey data in Dutch hospitals
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Author for correspondence: Ms. A. P. Meijs, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Department of Epidemiology and Surveillance, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. (Email: anouk.meijs@rivm.nl)

References

Hide All
1. Klevens, RM, et al. Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Reports 2007; 122: 160166.
2. Kirkland, KB, et al. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 1999; 20: 725730.
3. de Lissovoy, G, et al. Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. American Journal of Infection Control 2009; 37: 387397.
4. Coello, R, et al. Adverse impact of surgical site infections in English hospitals. Journal of Hospital Infection 2005; 60: 93103.
5. Geubbels, ELPE, et al. Reduced risk of surgical site infections through surveillance in a network. International Journal of Quality Health Care 2006; 18: 127133.
6. Haley, RW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. American Journal of Epidemiology 1985; 121: 182205.
7. Rioux, C, Grandbastien, B, Astagneau, P. Impact of a six-year control programme on surgical site infections in France: results of the INCISO surveillance. Journal of Hospital Infection 2007; 66: 217223.
8. Manniën, J, et al. Trends in the incidence of surgical site infection in the Netherlands. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2008; 29: 11321138.
9. Schroder, C, et al. Epidemiology of healthcare associated infections in Germany: Nearly 20 years of surveillance. International Journal of Medical Microbiology 2015; 305: 799806.
10. Brandt, C, et al. Reduction of surgical site infection rates associated with active surveillance. Infect Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2006; 27: 13471351.
11. Koch, AM, et al. Need for more targeted measures – only less severe hospital-associated infections declined after introduction of an infection control program. Journal of Infection and Public Health 2015; 8: 282290.
12. Gravel, D, et al. Point prevalence survey for healthcare-associated infections within Canadian adult acute-care hospitals. Journal of Hospital Infection 2007; 66: 243248.
13. Ustun, C, et al. The accuracy and validity of a weekly point-prevalence survey for evaluating the trend of hospital-acquired infections in a university hospital in Turkey. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2011; 15: e684687.
14. Magill, SS, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. New England Journal of Medicine 2014; 370: 11981208.
15. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals. Stockholm, Sweden: ECDC, 2013 (http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/healthcare-associated-infections-antimicrobial-use-PPS.pdf).
16. French, GL, et al. Repeated prevalence surveys for monitoring effectiveness of hospital infection control. Lancet 1989; 2: 10211023.
17. Rhame, FS, Sudderth, WD. Incidence and prevalence as used in the analysis of the occurrence of nosocomial infections. American Journal of Epidemiology 1981; 113: 111.
18. Freeman, J, Hutchison, GB. Prevalence, incidence and duration. American Journal of Epidemiology 1980; 112: 707723.
19. Freeman, J, McGowan, JE. Day-specific incidence of nosocomial infection estimated from a prevalence survey. American Journal of Epidemiology 1981; 114: 888901.
20. Delgado-Rodriguez, M, et al. A practical application of Rhame and Sudderth's formula on nosocomial infection surveillance. Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 1987; 35: 482487.
21. Gastmeier, P, et al. Converting incidence and prevalence data of nosocomial infections: results from eight hospitals. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2001; 22: 3134.
22. Rossello-Urgell, J, Rodriguez-Pla, A. Behavior of cross-sectional surveys in the hospital setting: a simulation model. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2005; 26: 362368.
23. Berthelot, P, et al. Conversion of prevalence survey data on nosocomial infections to incidence estimates: a simplified tool for surveillance? Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2007; 28: 633636.
24. Reilly, J, et al. NHS Scotland national HAI prevalence survey. Final Report. Glasgow, Scotland: Health Protection Scotland, 2007.
25. Horan, TC, et al. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 1992; 13: 606608.
26. Horan, TC, Andrus, M, Dudeck, MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. American Journal of Infection Control 2008; 36: 309332.
27. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Surveillance of surgical site infections in European hospitals – HAISSI protocol. Version 1.02. Stockholm, Sweden: ECDC, 2012 (http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/120215_TED_SSI_Protocol.pdf).
28. Geubbels, EL, et al. An operating surveillance system of surgical-site infections in The Netherlands: results of the PREZIES national surveillance network. Preventie van Ziekenhuisinfecties door Surveillance. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2000; 21: 311318.
29. Koek, MB, et al. Post-discharge surveillance (PDS) for surgical site infections: a good method is more important than a long duration. Eurosurveillance 2015; 20: pii = 21042.
30. van der Kooi, TI, et al. Prevalence of nosocomial infections in The Netherlands, 2007–2008: results of the first four national studies. Journal of Hospital Infection 2010; 75: 168172.
31. Mosteller, F, Tukey, JW. Data Analysis and Regression: a Second Course in Statistics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
32. Graves, N, et al. The prevalence and estimates of the cumulative incidence of hospital-acquired infections among patients admitted to Auckland District Health Board Hospitals in New Zealand. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2003; 24: 5661.
33. Kanerva, M, et al. Estimating the annual burden of health care-associated infections in Finnish adult acute care hospitals. American Journal of Infection Control 2009; 37: 227230.
34. Magill, SS, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. New England Journal of Medicine 2014; 370: 11981208.
35. van Walraven, C, Musselman, R. The Surgical Site Infection Risk Score (SSIRS): a model to predict the risk of surgical site infections. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e67167.
36. Paryavi, E, et al. Predictive model for surgical site infection risk after surgery for high-energy lower-extremity fractures: development of the risk of infection in orthopedic trauma surgery score. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2013; 74: 15211527.
37. Lee, MJ, et al. Predicting surgical site infection after spine surgery: a validated model using a prospective surgical registry. Spine Journal 2014; 14: 21122117.
38. Raja, SG, Rochon, M, Jarman, JW. Brompton Harefield Infection Score (BHIS): development and validation of a stratification tool for predicting risk of surgical site infection after coronary artery bypass grafting. International Journal of Surgery 2015; 16: 6973.

Keywords

Incidence of surgical site infections cannot be derived reliably from point prevalence survey data in Dutch hospitals

  • A. P. MEIJS (a1), J. A. FERREIRA (a2), S. C. DE GREEFF (a1), M. C. VOS (a3) and M. B. G. KOEK (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed