Judith Tanner

Post-discharge surveillance to identify colorectal surgical site infection rates and related costs

A growing number of surveillance studies have highlighted concerns with relying only on data from inpatients. Without post-discharge surveillance (PDS) data, the rate and burden of surgical site infections (SSIs) are underestimated. PDS data for colorectal surgery in the UK remains to be published. This is an important specialty to study since it is considered to have the highest SSI rate and is among the most expensive to treat. This study of colorectal SSI used a 30 day surveillance programme with telephone interviews and home visits. Each additional healthcare resource used by patients with SSI was documented and costed. Of the 105 patients who met the inclusion criteria and completed the 30 day follow-up, 29 (27%) developed SSI, of which 12 were diagnosed after discharge. The mean number of days to presentation of SSI was 13. Multivariable logistic analysis identified body mass index as the only significant risk factor. The additional cost of treating each infected patient was pound sterling 10,523, although 15% of these additional costs were met by primary care. The 5 month surveillance programme cost pound sterling 5,200 to run. An analysis of the surveillance nurses workload showed that the nurse could be replaced by a healthcare assistant. PDS to detect SSI after colorectal surgery is necessary to provide complete data with accurate additional costs.

Do surgical care bundles reduce the risk of surgical site infections in patients undergoing colorectal surgery? A systematic review and cohort meta-analysis of 8,515 patients.

BACKGROUND Care bundles are a strategy that can be used to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI), but individual studies of care bundles report conflicting outcomes. This study assesses the effectiveness of care bundles to reduce SSI among patients undergoing colorectal surgery. METHODS We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of care bundles to reduce SSI. The search strategy included database and clinical trials register searches from 2012 until June 2014, searching reference lists of retrieved studies and contacting study authors to obtain missing data. The Downs and Black checklist was used to assess the quality of all studies. Raw data were used to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) estimates using Cochrane Review Manager. The I(2) statistic and funnel plots were performed to identify publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to examine the influence of individual data sets on pooled RRs. RESULTS Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, with 13 providing sufficient data for a meta-analysis. Most study bundles included core interventions such as antibiotic administration, appropriate hair removal, glycemic control, and normothermia. The SSI rate in the bundle group was 7.0% (328/4,649) compared with 15.1% (585/3,866) in a standard care group. The pooled effect of 13 studies with a total sample of 8,515 patients shows that surgical care bundles have a clinically important impact on reducing the risk of SSI compared to standard care with a CI of 0.55 (0.39-0.77; P = .0005). CONCLUSION The systematic review and meta-analysis documents that use of an evidence-based, surgical care bundle in patients undergoing colorectal surgery significantly reduced the risk of SSI.

A benchmark too far: findings from a national survey of surgical site infection surveillance

BACKGROUND The national surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance service in England collates and publishes SSI rates that are used for benchmarking and to identify the prevalence of SSIs. However, research studies using high-quality SSI surveillance report rates that are much higher than those published by the national surveillance service. This variance questions the validity of data collected through the national service. AIM To audit SSI definitions and data collection methods used by hospital trusts in England. METHOD All 156 hospital trusts in England were sent questionnaires that focused on aspects of SSI definitions and data collection methods. FINDINGS Completed questionnaires were received from 106 hospital trusts. There were considerable differences in data collection methods and data quality that caused wide variation in reported SSI rates. For example, the SSI rate for knee replacement surgery was 4.1% for trusts that used high-quality postdischarge surveillance (PDS) and 1.5% for trusts that used low-quality PDS. Contrary to national protocols and definitions, 10% of trusts did not provide data on superficial infections, 15% of trusts did not use the recommended SSI definition, and 8% of trusts used inpatient data alone. Thirty trusts did not submit a complete set of their data to the national surveillance service. Unsubmitted data included non-mandatory data, PDS data and continuous data. CONCLUSION The national surveillance service underestimates the prevalence of SSIs and is not appropriate for benchmarking. Hospitals that conduct high-quality SSI surveillance will be penalized within the current surveillance service.

Surgical site infection: poor compliance with guidelines and care bundles.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are probably the most preventable of the health care‐associated infections. Despite the widespread international introduction of level I evidence‐based guidelines for the prevention of SSIs, such as that of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK and the surgical care improvement project (SCIP) of the USA, SSI rates have not measurably fallen. The care bundle approach is an accepted method of packaging best, evidence‐based measures into routine care for all patients and, common to many guidelines for the prevention of SSI, includes methods for preoperative removal of hair (where appropriate), rational antibiotic prophylaxis, avoidance of perioperative hypothermia, management of perioperative blood glucose and effective skin preparation. Reasons for poor compliance with care bundles are not clear and have not matched the wide uptake and perceived benefit of the WHO ‘Safe Surgery Saves Lives’ checklist. Recommendations include the need for further research and continuous updating of guidelines; comprehensive surveillance, using validated definitions that facilitate benchmarking of anonymised surgeon‐specific SSI rates; assurance that incorporation of checklists and care bundles has taken place; the development of effective communication strategies for all health care providers and those who commission services and comprehensive information for patients.

Surveillance of surgical site infection: more accurate definitions and intensive recording needed

Surgical site infection (SSI) continues to be a burden on systems that deliver healthcare and on patients who suffer morbidity, and mortality, associated with this complication of medical intervention. Surveillance of SSI is often an integral part of organizational infection prevention and control activities, but unless post-discharge surveillance is carried out in a robust manner the data may be inaccurate and misleading. Coupled with a lack of robust application of definitions, variations in methods of case-finding and incomplete follow-up, the results may lead to a false sense of security or conversely cause unnecessary anxieties. Data from national surveillance schemes that purport to be suitable for benchmarking are often at odds with published rates from well-designed studies and the reasons for this should be examined. If benchmarking is truly desirable and if clinicians are to have confidence in the outputs, surveillance schemes should ensure that participating organizations adopt a consistent approach to definitions, case-finding methodologies following discharge, and to robust follow-up, to ensure that every opportunity is taken to maximize the return rate and enhance data validity.

Preoperative hair removal: a systematic review.

Preparing patients for surgery has traditionally included the routine removal of body hair from the intended surgical wound site. However, there are studies which claim that preoperative hair removal is deleterious to patients, perhaps by causing surgical site infections (SSIs), and should not be carried out. The objective of this review was to determine if routine preoperative hair removal results in fewer SSIs than not removing hair. Eleven randomised controlled trials were included in this review. There is insufficient evidence to state whether removing hair impacts on surgical site infection or when is the best time to remove hair. However, if it is necessary to remove hair then both clipping and depilatory creams results in fewer SSIs than shaving using a razor.

Operating theatre nurses: emotional labour and the hostess role.

Emotional labour has been established as a significant factor in nursing work, although no studies have been done looking at emotional labour specifically in an operating theatre nursing context. Theatre staff (17 nurses and three Operating Department Practitioners (technicians) were observed in practice over a period of nine months by one of the authors. Each of the staff was subsequently interviewed. The transcriptions of the observation fieldwork notes and the semistructured interviews were analysed for themes and content. The (predominantly female) nurses perceived that one of their responsibilities was ‘looking after the surgeons’. We have described this as the ‘hostess’ role. This role consisted of two major areas of activity: ‘keeping the surgeons happy’ and ‘not upsetting the surgeons’. Examples are given of how this was accomplished through talk and actions. The (predominantly male) operating department practitioners did not see this as part of their work. This ‘hostess’ role is a kind of emotional labour, but performed with coworkers rather than patients. Like other forms of emotional labour, it is strongly gendered. The emotional labour performed by the theatre nurses was necessary to maintain what has been called elsewhere the ‘sentimental order’.

National survey of hand antisepsis practices.

Surgical hand antisepsis is routinely carried out prior to undertaking invasive procedures in an attempt to reduce surgical site infection. There are a number of components within hand antisepsis which include the choice of antiseptic agent, the method of application and the duration of the process. This article presents the findings of a postal survey of 1,471 (out of 8,000) perioperative practitioners identifying their surgical hand antisepsis practices. While a traditional scrub using chlorhexidine gluconate remains the preferred method of antisepsis, 20% of practitioners use alcohol rubs for repeated cases. Compliance with recommended guidelines is patchy (for example, only 3% of practitioners scrub for the recommended time of two minutes) and guidelines need to address more issues.

Surgical hand antisepsis: the evidence.

For 150 years members of the surgical team have been washing their hands with solutions designed to remove micro-organisms and therefore reduce surgical site infections in patients. This article discusses the evidence surrounding aspects of surgical hand antisepsis.

Effectiveness of a care bundle to reduce surgical site infections in patients having open colorectal surgery.

Introduction In 2010 a care bundle was introduced by the Department of Health (DH) to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs) in England. To date, use of the care bundle has not been evaluated despite incorporating interventions with resource implications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the DH SSI care bundle in open colorectal surgery. Methods A prospective cohort design was used at two teaching hospitals in England. The baseline group consisted of 127 consecutive patients having colorectal surgery during a 6-month period while the intervention group comprised 166 patients in the subsequent 6 months. SSI and care bundle compliance data were collected using dedicated surveillance staff. Results Just under a quarter (24%) of the patients in the baseline group developed a SSI compared with just over a quarter (28%) in the care bundle group (p>0.05). However, compliance rates with individual interventions, both before and after the implementation of the bundle, were similar. Interestingly, in only 19% of cases was there compliance with the total care bundle. The single intervention that showed an associated reduction in SSI was preoperative warming (p=0.032). Conclusions The DH care bundle did not reduce SSIs after open colorectal surgery. Despite this, it is not possible to state that the bundle is ineffective as compliance rates before and after bundle implementation were similar. All studies evaluating the effectiveness of care bundles must include data for compliance with interventions both before and after implementation of the care bundle; poor compliance may be one of the reasons for the lower than expected reduction of SSIs.