Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T05:44:12.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“But My Patients Are Different!”: Risk Adjustment in 2012 and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Rebekah W. Moehring  and
Deverick J. Anderson
Rebekah W. Moehring
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
Deverick J. Anderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
*
PO Box 102359, DUMC, Durham, NC 27710 (deverick.anderson@duke.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Feedback of surgical site infection (SSI) rates to surgeons improves patient outcomes and should be considered a cornerstone of any infection control program. For as long as feedback of SSI data has occurred, those in infection control have often heard a searing retort from indignant surgeons: “But my patients are different!”

Fortunately, epidemiologists have several tools to use in response. One of the most commonly used approaches involves risk adjustment for differences in case mix between the group of interest (eg, a surgeon's patients) and a comparator. In other words, risk adjustment levels the playing field.

Formal risk adjustment for rates of SSI has existed for almost 50 years but is still an imperfect science. In fact, risk adjustment for different variables can lead to different conclusions. Over the past 2 decades, the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) risk index has been used by many hospitals to perform risk adjustment for rates of SSI. The NHSN risk index is simple and effective but has undergone considerable scrutiny. Numerous investigators have described scenarios and/or procedures for which the risk index performed poorly and have offered suggestions for improvement. Indeed, Robert Gaynes summarized some of the shortcomings of the NHSN risk index in 2 editorials 10 years ago, stating, “A composite risk index that captures the joint influence of [intrinsic patient risk] and other risk factors is required before meaningful comparisons of SSI rates can be made by surgeons, among institutions, or across time.”

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 32 , Issue 10 , October 2011 , pp. 987 - 989
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2011

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. Anderson, DJ, Kaye, KS, Classen, D, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(suppl 1):S51–S61.Google Scholar
2. Berard, F, Gandon, J. Postoperative wound infections: the influence of ultraviolet irradiation of the operating room and of various other factors. Ann Surg 1964;160(suppl 1):1–192.Google Scholar
3. Hendryx, MS, Moore, R, Leeper, T, Reynolds, M, Davis, S. An examination of methods for risk-adjustment of rehospitalization rates. Ment Health Serv Res 2001;3(1):15–24.Google Scholar
4. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, Morgan, WM, White, JW, Emori, TG, Hooton, TM. Identifying patients at high risk of surgical wound infection: a simple multivariate index of patient susceptibility and wound contamination. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121(2): 206–215.Google Scholar
5. Geubbels, EL, Grobbee, DE, Vandenbroucke-Grauls, CM, Wille, JC, de Boer, AS. Improved risk adjustment for comparison of surgical site infection rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006; 27(12):1330–1339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Brandt, C, Hansen, S, Sohr, D, Daschner, F, Ruden, H, Gastmeier, P. Finding a method for optimizing risk adjustment when comparing surgical-site infection rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25(4):313–318.Google Scholar
7. Roy, MC, Herwaldt, LA, Embrey, R, Kuhns, K, Wenzel, RP, Perl, TM. Does the Centers for Disease Control's NNIS system risk index stratify patients undergoing cardiothoracic operations by their risk of surgical-site infection? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21(3):186–190.Google Scholar
8. Friedman, ND, Bull, AL, Russo, PL, et al. An alternative scoring system to predict risk for surgical site infection complicating coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(10):1162–1168.Google Scholar
9. Gaynes, RP. Surgical-site infections and the NNIS SSI risk index: room for improvement. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21(3):184–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Gaynes, RP. Surgical-site infections (SSI) and the NNIS basic SSI risk index, part II: room for improvement. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22(5):266–267.Google Scholar
11. Mu, Y, Edwards, J, Horan, T, Berrios-Torres, S, Fridkin, S. Improving risk-adjusted measures of surgical site infection for the National Healthcare Safety Network. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(10):970–986 (in this issue).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Halm, EA, Lee, C, Chassin, MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? a systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(6):511–520.Google Scholar
13. Gaynes, RP, Solomon, S. Improving hospital-acquired infection rates: the CDC experience. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1996;22(7): 457–467.Google Scholar
14. Henderson, WG, Daley, J. Design and statistical methodology of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: why is it what it is? Am J Surg 2009;198(suppl 5):S19–S27.Google Scholar
15. Shahian, DM, O'Brien, SM, Filardo, G, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1—coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88(suppl 1):S2–S22.Google Scholar