Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-06T17:39:08.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interhospital Comparisons of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgical Site Infection Rates Differ if Donor Sites Are Excluded

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

P. L. Russo ,
L. Gurrin ,
N. D. Friedman ,
A. L. Bull ,
S. Marasco ,
H. Kelly ,
C. J. Boardman  and
M. J. Richards
P. L. Russo*
Affiliation:
Victorian Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance System Coordinating Centre, Melbourne, Australia
L. Gurrin
Affiliation:
School of Population Health, theUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
N. D. Friedman
Affiliation:
Victorian Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance System Coordinating Centre, Melbourne, Australia
A. L. Bull
Affiliation:
Victorian Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance System Coordinating Centre, Melbourne, Australia
S. Marasco
Affiliation:
Alfred Hospital, Cardiothoracic Unit and Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
H. Kelly
Affiliation:
Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, Melbourne, Australia
C. J. Boardman
Affiliation:
Victorian Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance System Coordinating Centre, Melbourne, Australia
M. J. Richards
Affiliation:
Victorian Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance System Coordinating Centre, Melbourne, Australia
*
VICNISS Coordinating Centre, 10 Wreckyn St., North Melbourne, Vic 3605, Australia (philip.russo@mh.org.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The advent of public reporting of hospital-acquired infection rates has sparked ongoing discussion about the most appropriate surveillance data to present. When we used different numerators to calculate rates of surgical site infection following coronary artery bypass graft surgery, we found that some hospitals' rates and their rankings were notably affected.

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 28 , Issue 10 , October 2007 , pp. 1210 - 1212
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2007 

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. Weinstein, RA, Siegal, JD, Brennan, PJ. Infection control report cards—securing patient safety. N Engl J Med 2005;353:225–227.Google Scholar
2. McKibben, L, Fowler, G, Horan, TC, Brennan, PJ. Ensuring rational public reporting systems for health care-associated infections: systematic literature review and evaluation recommendations. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:142–149.Google Scholar
3. Russo, PL, Bull, A, Bennett, N, et al. The establishment of a statewide surveillance program for hospital-acquired infections in large Victorian public hospitals. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:430–436.Google Scholar
4. Friedman, ND, Russo, PL, Bull, AL, Kelly, H, Richards, MJ. Validation of coronary artery bypass graft surgical site infection surveillance data from a statewide surveillance system in Australia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:812–817.Google Scholar
5. Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Martone, WJ, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:606–608.Google Scholar
6. Spiegelhalter, DJ. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med 2005;24:1185–1202.Google Scholar
7. McKibben, L, Horan, TC, Tokars, JI, et al. Guidance on public reporting of healthcare-associated infections: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 2005;33:217–226.Google Scholar