No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Administrative coding methods impact surgical site infection rates
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 August 2020
Abstract
We performed a retrospective analysis of the impact of using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision procedure coding system (ICD-10) or current procedural terminology (CPT) codes to calculate surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Denominators and SSI rates vary depending on the coding method used. The coding method used may influence interhospital performance comparisons.
- Type
- Concise Communication
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.
References
Hawn, MT, Vick, CC, Richman, J, et al. Surgical site infection prevention: time to move beyond the surgical care improvement program. Ann Surg 2011;254:494–501.Google ScholarPubMed
Mahmoud, NN, Turpin, RS, Yang, G, Saunders, WB. Impact of surgical site infections on length of stay and costs in selected colorectal procedures. Surg Infect 2009;10:539–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tserenpuntsag, B, Haley, V, Van Antwerpen, C, et al. Surgical site infection risk factors identified for patients undergoing colon procedures, New York State 2009–2010. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:1006–1012.Google ScholarPubMed
Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al. The efficacy oe infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in us hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:182–205.Google Scholar
Operational guidance for reporting surgical site infection (SSI) data to CDC’s NHSN for the purpose of fulfilling CMS’s hospital inpatient quality reporting (IQR) program requirements. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/cms/ssi/Final-ACH-SSI-Guidance.pdf. Updated November 2019. Accessed July 20, 2020.Google Scholar
Bordeianou, L, Cauley, CE, Antonelli, D, et al. Truth in reporting: how data capture methods obfuscate actual surgical site infection rates within a healthcare network system. Dis Colon Rectum 2017;60(1):96.Google ScholarPubMed
Ju, MH, Ko, CY, Hall, BL, Bosk, CL, Bilimoria, KY, Wick, EC. A comparison of 2 surgical site infection monitoring systems. JAMA Surg 2015;150:51–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nayar, V, Kennedy, A, Pappas, J, et al. Improving cardiac surgical site infection reporting and prevention by using registry data for case ascertainment. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;101:190–199.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Mourik, MSM, van Duijn, PJ, Moons, KGM, Bonten, MJM, Lee, GM. Accuracy of administrative data for surveillance of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2015;5(8):e008424.Google ScholarPubMed
Goto, M, Ohl, ME, Schweizer, ML, Perencevich, EN. Accuracy of administrative code data for the surveillance of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2014;58:688–696.Google ScholarPubMed
Rennert-May, E, Manns, B, Smith, S, et al. Validity of administrative data in identifying complex surgical site infections from a population-based cohort after primary hip and knee arthroplasty in Alberta, Canada. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:1123–1126.Google ScholarPubMed
Yokoe, DS, Khan, Y, Olsen, MA, et al. Enhanced surgical site infection surveillance following hysterectomy, vascular, and colorectal surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:768–773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atchley, KD, Pappas, JM, Kennedy, AT, et al. Use of administrative data for surgical site infection surveillance after congenital cardiac surgery results in inaccurate reporting of surgical site infection rates. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;97:651–658.Google ScholarPubMed