Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T06:42:30.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SIR, You've Led Me Astray!

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

David Birnbaum ,
Roxie Zarate  and
Anthony Marfin
David Birnbaum*
Affiliation:
Washington State Health Department, Olympia
Roxie Zarate
Affiliation:
Washington State Health Department, Olympia
Anthony Marfin
Affiliation:
Washington State Health Department, Olympia
*
Washington State Department of Health, HAI Program, PO Box 47811, Olympia, WA (david.birnbaum@doh.wa.gov)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background.

The standardized infection ratio (SIR) is an indirectly standardized morbidity ratio that has been used to compare the infection rate in a hospital with an expected number of infections from a national standard and is being increasingly promoted as a metric for the public reporting of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).

Objective.

To identify potential discrepancies between SIR and other measures of risk.

Methods.

Hypothetical and real data were compared using relative risk, a directly standardized morbidity ratio, and SIR values across a range of varying hospital population compositions.

Results.

In real and hypothetical data, other summary statistics were consistent with each other and with underlying HAI incidence density rates. However, use of the SIR frequently led to conclusions inconsistent with these other inherently unbiased estimators.

Conclusion.

Because of a recognized type of distortion inherent in the calculation of indirectly standardized ratios, use of the SIR can lead to conclusions that differ from those reached when using other traditional measures of risk and to incorrect assessments of conclusions about the performance of hospitals or states. In addition, the tendency to inappropriately arrange SIR values in rank order for comparison makes SIR unsuitable as a statewide metric for monitoring HAIs.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , March 2011 , pp. 276 - 282
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.Culver, D, Horan, T, Gaynes, R. Comparing surgical site infection (SSI) rates using the NNIS SSI risk index and the standardized infection ratio. Am J Infect Control 1994;22(2):102.Google Scholar
2.Rothman, KJ. Modern epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown, 1986.Google Scholar
3.US Department of Health and Human Services. HHS action plan to prevent healthcare-associated infections, http://www.hhs.gov/ash/initiatives/hai/index.html. Accessed February 8, 2011.Google Scholar
4.Consumers Union. Deadly infections: hospitals can lower the risk, but many fail to act. http://www.consumerreports.org/health/doctors-hospitals/hospital-infection/deadly-infections-hospitals-can-lower-the-danger/overview/deadly-infections-hospitals-can-lower-the-danger.htm. Accessed May 27, 2010.Google Scholar
5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. First state-specific healthcare-associated infections summary data report CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) January-June, 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/hai/statesummary.html. Accessed May 27, 2010.Google Scholar
6.Reinberg, S. Decline in potentially lethal hospital-based infections. Bloomberg Businessweek. May 27, 2010. http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/639582.html?campaigned = rss_topEmailedStories. Accessed June 15, 2010.Google Scholar
7.Yule, GU. On some points relating to vital statistics, more especially statistics of occupational methods. J R Stat Soc 1934;97:1–84.Google Scholar
8.Cochrane, WG. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1977.Google Scholar
9.Gustafson, TL. Practical risk-adjusted quality control charts for infection control. Am J Infect Control 2000;28(6):406–414.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Delgado-Rodríguez, M, Llorca, J. Caution should be exercised when using the standardized infection ratio. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26(1):8–9.Google Scholar
11.Gustafson, TL. Three uses of the standardized infection ratio (SIR) in infection control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(4):427–430.Google Scholar
12.Narong, MN, Thongpiyapoom, S, Thaikul, N, et al.Surgical site infections in patients undergoing major operations in a university hospital: using standardized infection ratio as a benchmarking tool. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:274–279.Google Scholar
13.Jodra, VM, Rodela, AR, Martínez, FM, Fresneña, NL. 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. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24(10):744–748.Google Scholar
14.Kasatpibal, N, Jamulitrat, S, Chongsuvivatwong, V, et al.Standardized incidence rates of surgical site infection: a multicenter study in Thailand. Am J Infect Control 2005;33(10):587–594.Google Scholar
15.Jodrá, VM, Díaz-Agero Pérez, C, Sainz de los Torreros Soler, L, et al.Results of the Spanish national nosocomial infection surveillance network (VICONOS) for surgery patients from January 1997 through December 2003. Am J Infect Control 2006;34(3): 134–141.Google Scholar
16.Rioux, C, Grandbastien, B, Astagneau, P. The standardized incidence ratio as a reliable tool for surgical site infection surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(8):817–824.Google Scholar
17. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 42 CFR §412, §413, §415, §424, §440, §441, §482, §485, and §489. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-08-16/html/2010-19092.htm. Accessed February 8, 2011.Google Scholar