Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T16:24:07.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nosocomial Infections in Surgical Patients: Comparison of Two Measures of Intrinsic Patient Risk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez ,
María Sillero-Arenas ,
Marcelino Medina-Cuadros  and
Gabriel Martínez-Gallego
Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez*
Affiliation:
Division of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Cantabria, Santander, Jaén, Spain Division of Health Programs, Provincial Office for Health, Jaén, Spain
María Sillero-Arenas
Affiliation:
Division of Health Programs, Provincial Office for Health, Jaén, Spain
Marcelino Medina-Cuadros
Affiliation:
Service of General Surgery, General Hospital Ciudad de Jaén, Jaén, Spain Division of Health Programs, Provincial Office for Health, Jaén, Spain
Gabriel Martínez-Gallego
Affiliation:
Service of General Surgery, General Hospital Ciudad de Jaén, Jaén, Spain Division of Health Programs, Provincial Office for Health, Jaén, Spain
*
Division of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Cantabria, Avenida Cardenal Herrera Oria s/n, 39011-Santander, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To compare, in subjects undergoing general surgery, two measures of intrinsic patient risk for nosocomial infection: the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) index and the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) System index.

Design:

Prospective cohort study, with follow-up for 1 month after hospital discharge.

Setting:

The general surgery service of a tertiary hospital.

Main Outcome Measure:

Surgical-site infection.

Patients:

1,483 subjects aged 10 to 92 years.

Results:

During follow-up, 155 patients developed nosocomial infection, yielding a cumulative incidence of 10.5%. The NNIS index showed a linear trend with both crude and adjusted (for SENIC index) rates of surgicalwound infection. The SENIC index did not exhibit any linear trend with adjusted (for NNIS index) rates of surgical-wound infection. To delineate whether the SENIC index added explanatory information to the NNIS index (or vice versa), we regressed each variable on the other. Logistic regression analyses confirmed the results of stratified analysis: residuals of the NNIS index added discriminating ability to the SENIC index, whereas residuals of the SENIC index did not improve the predictive power of the NNIS index.

Conclusions:

The NNIS index had a better ability than the SENIC index for discriminating and predicting risk of surgical-wound infection

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 1997 , pp. 19 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1997

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. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Nosocomial infection rates for interhospital comparison: limitations and possible solutions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;10:609–621.Google Scholar
2. Haley, RW. Nosocomial infections in surgical patients: developing valid measures of intrinsic patient risk. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):145S–151S.Google Scholar
3. Culver, DH, Horan, RC, Gaynes, RP, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):152S–157S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;121:206–215.Google Scholar
5. McCabe, WR, Jackson, GG. Gram-negative bacteremia, II: clinical, laboratory and therapeutic observations. Arch Intern Med 1962;110:856–864.Google Scholar
6. Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128–140.Google Scholar
7. Haley, RW, Quade, D, Freeman, H, Bennet, J, the CDC SENIC Planning Committee. Appendix E. Algorithms for diagnosing infections. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:635–643.Google Scholar
8. Mantel, N. Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom: extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. J Am Stat Assoc 1963;58:690–700.Google Scholar
9. Gross, PA. Striving for benchmark infection rates: progress in control for patient mix. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):16S–20S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Scheckler, WE. Surgeon-specific wound infection rates—a potentially dangerous and misleading strategy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988;9:145–146.Google ScholarPubMed