Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T18:31:54.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of Matched Patient Data for SSIs following Total Hip and Total Knee Arthoplasty: IPC Versus NSQIP Surveillance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2020

Jennifer Ellison
Affiliation:
Infection Prevention & Control, Alberta Health Services
David Chakravorty
Affiliation:
Surgery Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services
John Conly
Affiliation:
Foothills Medical Centre
Joseph Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Calgary
Stacey Litvinchuk
Affiliation:
Surgical Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services
Arun Pokhrel
Affiliation:
System Performance and Innovation, Alberta Health Services
Ye Shen
Affiliation:
Infection Prevention & Control, Alberta Health Services
Christopher Smith
Affiliation:
Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute
Kathryn Bush
Affiliation:
Infection Prevention & Control, Alberta Health Services
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Background: In Alberta, Canada, surgical site infections (SSIs) following total hip and knee replacements (THRs and TKRs) are reported using the infection prevention and control (IPC) surveillance system, which surveys all THRs and TKRs using the NHSN definitions; and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), which uses different definitions and sampling strategies. Deterministic matching of patient data from these sources was used to examine the overlap and discrepancies in SSI reporting. Methods: A retrospective multisite cohort study of IPC and NSQIP superficial, deep, and organ-space THR/TKR SSI data collected 30 days postoperatively from September 1, 2015, to March 31, 2018 was undertaken. To identify patients with procedures captured by both IPC and NSQIP, data were cleaned, duplicates removed, and patients matched 1:1 using year of birth, procedure facility, type, side, date, and time. Positive and negative agreement were assessed, and the Cohen κ values were calculated. The definitions and data capture methods used by both IPC and NSQIP were also compared. Results: There were 7,549 IPC and 2,037 NSQIP patients, respectively, with 1,798 matched patients: IPC (23.8%) and NSQIP (88.3%). Moreover, 17 SSIs were identified by both IPC and NSQIP, including 9 superficial and 8 complex by IPC and 6 superficial and 11 complex by NSQIP. Also, 7 SSIs were identified only by IPC, of which 5 were superficial, and 36 SSIs were identified only by NSQIP, of which 28 were superficial (positive agreement, 0.44; negative agreement, 0.99; κ = .43). Excluding superficial SSIs, 7 SSIs were identified by both IPC and NSQIP; 3 were identified only by IPC; and 12 were identified only by NSQIP (positive agreement, 0.48; negative agreement, 1.00; κ = 0.48). Conclusions: THR/TKR SSI rates reported by IPC and NSQIP were not comparable in this matched dataset. NSQIP identifies more superficial SSIs. Variations in data capture methods and definitions accounted for most of the discordance. Both surveillance systems are critically involved with improving patient outcomes following surgery. However, stakeholders need to be aware of these variations, and education should be provided to facilitate an understanding of the differences and their interpretation. Future work should explore other surgical procedures and larger data sets.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.