Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-dxfhg Total loading time: 0.467 Render date: 2021-03-03T14:48:21.144Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Standardized Infection Ratios for Three General Surgery Procedures: A Comparison Between Spanish Hospitals and U.S. Centers Participating in the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

V. Monge Jodra
Affiliation:
Preventive Medicine Unit, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
A. Robustillo Rodela
Affiliation:
Preventive Medicine Unit, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
F. Martín Martínez
Affiliation:
Preventive Medicine Unit, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
N. López Fresneña
Affiliation:
Preventive Medicine Unit, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain

Abstract

Objectives:

To compare Spanish surgical wound infection (SWI) rates for three procedures with those published by the U.S. NNIS System, and to analyze quarterly trends.

Design:

This was a 4-year prospective analysis of SWI using data from a Spanish nosocomial infection surveillance network based on CDC classification criteria. SWI rates were computed as standardized infection ratios (SIRs). Trends for both SWIs and SIRs were evaluated by linear regression.

Setting:

Forty-three Spanish hospitals during 1997 through 2000.

Patients:

Those undergoing cholecystectomy (n = 7,631), appendectomy (n = 5,780), and herniorrhaphy (n = 9,864).

Results:

For cholecystectomy patients, the SWI rate was 4.38% and the SIR was 3.32. Both of these variables showed a slightly rising, although nonsignificant, linear trend during the study period. For appendectomy patients, the SWI rate was 7.94% and the SIR was 2.86. The linear trend was increasing for both, but only the SWI rate attained significance. For herniorrhaphy patients, the SWI rate was 1.77% and the SIR was 1.64. Both of these variables showed a significant descending tendency during the 4 years.

Conclusions:

Because the SIR takes into account the patient risk category, it is the best indicator of the trend shown by the SWI rate over time for a given surgical procedure. According to our comparison of SIRs with reference NNIS System values, SWI rates for cholecystectomy and appendectomy were high. Monitoring of the SIR will provide a basis for the design of infection control measures and the assessment of their effectiveness.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1.Huskins, WC, Soule, BM, O'Boyle, C, Gulácsi, L, O'Rourke, EJ, Goldmann, DA. Hospital infection prevention and control: a model for improving the quality of hospital care in low- and middle-income countries. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:125135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Poulsen, KB, Bremmelgaard, A, Sorensen, AI, Raahave, D, Petersen, JV. Estimated costs of postoperative wound infections: a case-control study of marginal hospital and social security costs. Epidemiol Infect 1994;113:283295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Jarvis, WR. Selected aspects of the socioeconomic impact of nosocomial infections: morbidity, mortality, cost, and prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:552557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Vegas, AA, Jodrá, VM, Garcia, ML. Nosocomial infections in surgery wards: a controlled study of increased duration of hospital stays and direct cost of hospitalization. Eur J Epidemiol 1993;9:504510.Google Scholar
5.Grupo de trabajo EPINE. Evolución de la prevalencia de las infecciones nosocomiales en los hospitales espanoles. Grupo de trabajo EPINE, Vaqué J, Roselló J, eds. Spain: 2001:121,186.Google Scholar
6.Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, J, et al.The efficacy of infection and surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:182205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Roy, MC, Perl, TM. Basics of surgical-site infection surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:659668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Gaynes, RP, Solomon, S. Improving hospital-acquired infection rates: the CDC experience, Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1996;22:457467.Google ScholarPubMed
9.National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System report: data summary from January 1992-April 2000, issued June 2000. Am J Infect Control 2000;28:429448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Culver, DH, Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, et al.Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index: National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Am J Med 1991;91:152S157S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Horan, TC, Emori, TG. Definitions of key terms used in the NNIS System. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:112116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Martone, WJ, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:606608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Gustafson, TL. Practical risk-adjusted quality control charts for infection control. Am J Infect Control 2000;28:406414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Benneyan, JC. Statistical quality control methods in infection control and hospital epidemiology: Part I. Introduction and basic theory. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:194214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Benneyan, JC. Statistical quality control methods in infection control and hospital epidemiology: Part II. Chart use, statistical properties, and research issues. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:265283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Gulácsi, L, Kiss, ZT, Goldmann, DA, Huskins, WC. Risk-adjusted infection rates in surgery: a model for outcome measurement in hospitals developing quality improvement programmes. J Hosp Infect 2000;44:4352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 8 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 3rd March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

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.

Standardized Infection Ratios for Three General Surgery Procedures: A Comparison Between Spanish Hospitals and U.S. Centers Participating in the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System
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.

Standardized Infection Ratios for Three General Surgery Procedures: A Comparison Between Spanish Hospitals and U.S. Centers Participating in the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System
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.

Standardized Infection Ratios for Three General Surgery Procedures: A Comparison Between Spanish Hospitals and U.S. Centers Participating in the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *