Outcomes of a postdischarge surveillance system for surgical site infections at a Midwestern regional referral center hospital

Fields, Cynthia

doi:10.1016/s0196-6553(99)70092-1

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consultant surgeons perform the surgery in private hospitals whereas surgical trainees do a substantial proportion in public hospitals. Nevertheless, the risk‐adjusted SSI rates in the present study, to a large extent, match those appearing in the literature 2,8,19,30–33 . After follow up the overall SSI rate (6.0%) was found to be more than double the in‐hospital rate (2.7%), a figure in the mid‐range of reported studies 2,19,32,34 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Post‐discharge surgical wound infection surveillance in a provincial hospital: Follow‐up rates, validity of data and review of the literature

Kent¹,

McDonald²,

Harris³

et al. 2001

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An effective post-discharge follow-up programme significantly increased the SSI rate. From the authors' experience and a literature survey, possible ways to achieve high follow-up rates were suggested. It was also recommended that professional and regulating bodies in Australia be encouraged to standardize methodology and set minimum follow-up rates for post-discharge SSI surveillance. Increasing use of computerized hospital database systems for automated data gathering and processing should make this more practicable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Post‐discharge surgical wound infection surveillance in a provincial hospital: Follow‐up rates, validity of data and review of the literature

Kent¹,

McDonald²,

Harris³

et al. 2001

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(i) While the CDC criteria classify surgical site infections as nosocomial until 30 days after discharge, traditional infection control programs usually do not cover this period. Without conducting post-discharge surveillance, the reported rates of surgical site infections are therefore probably 50% too low [11,13,14,15]. However, in this study 6 of 38 surgical site infections were diagnosed after discharge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Comparison of Two Surveillance Methods for Detecting Nosocomial Infections in Surgical Patients

Beaujean

Veltkamp

Blok

et al. 2002

European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Dise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nosocomial infections play a role in quality and cost control in health care. Surveillance of these infections is the only way to gain more insight into their frequency and causes. Since the results of surveillance may lead to changes in both patient and hospital management, which are sometimes major, it is necessary that all healthcare workers involved agree on the criteria used for the diagnosis and surveillance of these complications. In order to compare the efficacy of two surveillance methods, nosocomial infections in surgical patients were registered by both the Department of Surgery (complication surveillance [CS]) and the Department of Infection Control (nosocomial infection surveillance [NIS]) at the University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands, over a 2-month period. The CS team used the national criteria of the Association of Surgeons of the Netherlands and the NIS team used the international criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA, to define cases of nosocomial infection. A total of 515 patients were included in both arms of the study. The CS team diagnosed 69 infections in 49 patients, and the NIS team diagnosed 64 infections in 45 patients. Of 104 total infections, 39 were diagnosed by the CS team exclusively, 35 by the NIS team exclusively and only 30 by both. The main reasons for the inconsistent results were as follows: (i) the lack of follow-up after discharge in the NIS arm, (ii) the use of clinical criteria for the definition of a nosocomial infection in the CS arm, and (iii) the use of positive cultures as part of the criteria in the NIS arm. From the perspective of infection control, the CS system cannot be recommended for the surveillance of nosocomial infections.

show abstract

“…In contrast, postoperative hospital stay is several days in the United States due to the differences in the health care insurance system between the two countries. In the United States, it has been reported that 84% of SSI occurred after hospital discharge and 63% were managed outside the surgical facility, addressing the importance of a postdischarge surveillance system for SSI 23,24 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy: 1‐day versus 4‐day treatments

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The standard protocol of antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy remains to be established. We retrospectively compared the occurrence of perioperative infections following radical prostatectomy between two different protocols of antibiotic prophylaxis. Methods: This study included 106 cases of radical retropubic prostatectomy managed on the clinical pathways. Two different protocols of antibiotic prophylaxis were used in otherwise identical pathways. Between January and December 2004, 50 patients received a second generation cephem, cefotiam, for 4 days, beginning 30 min before surgery (4-day group), whilst between December 2004 and July 2005, only two doses of cefotiam were given on the day of operation in 56 patients (1-day group). The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and remote infection (RI) was retrospectively investigated. Results: Superficial incisional SSI occurred in one (1.8%) patient in the 1-day group, whereas no patient in the 4-day group developed SSI. No RI was observed in either the 1-day or 4-day group. Intravenous antibiotics were administered besides the pathway in a patient in the 1-day group because unexplained fever more than 38°C continued postoperative day (POD) 2 through POD 4 without signs of SSI or RI. Excluding this case, postoperative more than 38°C was rare and transient after POD 2. Conclusion: The incidence of SSI and RI was low and not significantly different between the 1-day and 4-day groups. Therefore, the 1-day protocol of prophylactic antibiotic treatment seems adequate for preventing perioperative infections in radical prostatectomy.

show abstract

Outcomes of a postdischarge surveillance system for surgical site infections at a Midwestern regional referral center hospital

Cited by 18 publications

References 15 publications

Post‐discharge surgical wound infection surveillance in a provincial hospital: Follow‐up rates, validity of data and review of the literature

Post‐discharge surgical wound infection surveillance in a provincial hospital: Follow‐up rates, validity of data and review of the literature

Comparison of Two Surveillance Methods for Detecting Nosocomial Infections in Surgical Patients

Antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy: 1‐day versus 4‐day treatments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About