Methods for identifying surgical wound infection after discharge from hospital: a systematic review

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Seebohm Rowntree Building, York, UK.
BMC Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 2.56). 02/2006; 6(1):170. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-6-170
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Wound infections are a common complication of surgery that add significantly to the morbidity of patients and costs of treatment. The global trend towards reducing length of hospital stay post-surgery and the increase in day case surgery means that surgical site infections (SSI) will increasingly occur after hospital discharge. Surveillance of SSIs is important because rates of SSI are viewed as a measure of hospital performance, however accurate detection of SSIs post-hospital discharge is not straightforward.
We conducted a systematic review of methods of post discharge surveillance for surgical wound infection and undertook a national audit of methods of post-discharge surveillance for surgical site infection currently used within United Kingdom NHS Trusts.
Seven reports of six comparative studies which examined the validity of post-discharge surveillance methods were located; these involved different comparisons and some had methodological limitations, making it difficult to identify an optimal method. Several studies evaluated automated screening of electronic records and found this to be a useful strategy for the identification of SSIs that occurred post discharge. The audit identified a wide range of relevant post-discharge surveillance programmes in England, Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland; however, these programmes used varying approaches for which there is little supporting evidence of validity and/or reliability.
In order to establish robust methods of surveillance for those surgical site infections that occur post discharge, there is a need to develop a method of case ascertainment that is valid and reliable post discharge. Existing research has not identified a valid and reliable method. A standardised definition of wound infection (e.g. that of the Centres for Disease Control) should be used as a basis for developing a feasible, valid and reliable approach to defining post discharge SSI. At a local level, the method used to ascertain post discharge SSI will depend upon the purpose of the surveillance, the nature of available routine data and the resources available.

Download full-text


Available from: Nicky A Cullum, Jun 17, 2015
1 Follower
  • African journal of microbiology research 03/2012; 6(12). DOI:10.5897/AJMR12.377 · 0.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical site infections are a risk inherent to surgical procedures, especially after digestive surgeries. They occur up to 30 days after surgery, or up to a year later if a prosthesis is implanted. The Surgical-site Infection Risk Index (SIRI), NISS (National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance) methodology, is a method to evaluate the risk of surgical site infections, which takes into account the potential contamination of the surgery, the patient's health status and surgery duration. To evaluate the correlation between the surgical-site infection risk index score on the 1st day postoperatively, and the development of surgical site infection up to 30 days postoperatively. The postoperative surgical site infections (NNIS) was evaluated by following-up in hospital and as an outpatient. The patients followed prospectively were those submitted to elective surgeries, clean (hernioplasties) or contaminated (colorretal), performed by conventional approach at a university hospital, during the period from June 2007 to August 2008. The mean age of the patients was 55.5 years, 133 (65.5%) male; 120 (59.1%) submitted to clean surgeries and 83 (40.9%) contaminated. The global index of surgical site infections was 10.3%; 10 (8.3%) in clean procedures and 111(3.2%) in contaminated ones. Four (19.1%) of the surgical site infections were diagnosed at the time of hospitalization and 17 (80.9%) at post-discharge follow-up. Twelve (57.1%) of the surgical site infections were superficial, 2 (9.5%) deep and 7 (33.3%) at a specific site. Of these, 5 (6.6%) were in patients classified as SIRI 0 (76); 9 (15%) for SIRI 1 (60); 5 (9.1%) for SIRI 2 (55) and 2 (16.7%) for SIRI 3. The global index of surgical site infections and its incidence among contaminated procedures are within the expected limits. On the other hand according to SIRI, the surgical site infection indexes are above the expected standards both for the clean and for the contaminated procedures.
    Arquivos de gastroenterologia 12/2010; 47(4):383-7. DOI:10.1590/S0004-28032010000400012
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Monitoring surgical site infection (SSI) performed during hospitalization can underestimate its rates due to the shortening in hospital stay. The aim of this study was to determine the actual rates of SSI using a post-discharge monitoring system. Methods All patients who underwent herniorraphy or mastectomy in the Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 were included. SSI data were collected prospectively according to the continuous quality improvement indicators (Indicadores Clinicos de Mejora Continua de la Calidad [INCLIMECC]) monitoring system. Post-discharge follow-up was conducted by telephone survey. Results A total of 409 patients were included in the study, of whom 299 underwent a herniorraphy procedure, and 110 underwent a mastectomy procedure. For herniorrhaphy, the SSI rate increased from 6.02% to 7.6% (the post-discharge survey detected 21.7% of SSI). For mastectomy, the SSI rate increased from 1.8% to 3.6% (the post-discharge survey detected 50% of SSI). Conclusions Post-discharge monitoring showed an increased detection of SSI incidence. Post-discharge monitoring is useful to analyze the real trend of SSI, and evaluate improvement actions. Post-discharge follow-up methods need to standardised.
    Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica 10/2014; 32(8):502–506. · 1.88 Impact Factor