Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:01:20.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Operating Surveillance System of Surgical-Site Infections in The Netherlands: Results of the PREZIES National Surveillance Network

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Eveline L.P.E. Geubbels ,
A. Joke Mintjes-de Groot ,
Jan Maarten J. van den Berg  and
Annette S. de Boer
Eveline L.P.E. Geubbels*
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
A. Joke Mintjes-de Groot
Affiliation:
National Organization for Quality Assurance in Hospitals (CBO), Utrecht, The Netherlands
Jan Maarten J. van den Berg
Affiliation:
National Organization for Quality Assurance in Hospitals (CBO), Utrecht, The Netherlands
Annette S. de Boer
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
*
National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, CIE, PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To describe the results of the first year of the Dutch national surveillance of surgical-site infections (SSIs) and risk factors, which aims to implement a standardized surveillance system in a network of Dutch hospitals, to collect comparable data on SSIs to serve as a reference, and to provide a basic infrastructure for further intervention research.

Design:

Prospective multicenter cohort study.

Setting:

Acute-care hospitals in The Netherlands from June 1996 to May 1997.

Results:

38 hospitals participated, with a slight overrepresentation of larger hospitals. Following a total of 18,063 operations, 562 SSIs occurred, of which 198 were deep. Multivariate analysis of pooled procedures shows that age, preoperative length of stay, wound contamination class, anesthesia score, and duration of surgery were independent risk factors for SSI. When analyzed by procedure, the relative importance of these risk factors changed. Bacteriological documentation was available for 56% of the SSIs; 35% of all isolates were Staphylococcus aureus. Multiple regression analysis computed the mean extra postoperative length of stay associated with SSI to be 8.2 days.

Conclusion:

The first year of national surveillance has shown that it is feasible to collect comparable data on SSI, which are already used for education, policy, and decision making in the network of participating hospitals. This gives room to effectuate the next aim, namely to use the network as an infrastructure for intervention research. Multivariate analysis shows that feedback on a procedure-specific level is important.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 21 , Issue 5 , May 2000 , pp. 311 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2000

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. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System report, data summary from October 1986-April 1998, issued June 1998. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:522–533.Google Scholar
2. Ronveaux, O, Mertens, R, Dupont, Y. Surgical wound infection surveillance: results from the Belgian hospital network. Acta Chir Belg 1996;96:3–10.Google Scholar
3. Kjaeldgaard, P, Cordtz, T, Sejberg, D, Kjaersgaard, E, Sillemann, MP, La Cour Andersen, J, et al. The DANOP-DATA system: a low cost personal computer based program for monitoring of wound infections in surgical ward. J Hosp Infect 1989;13:273–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Gulácsi, L, Tatár Kiss, Zs, Kovács, A, Vass, L, Lukács Tóth, Gy, Bessenyei, L, et al. Uncomplicated wound healing, part 6. Hospital wound infection surveillance program in Hungarian hospitals, 1992-1994. Health Management Rev 1996;5:432–449.Google Scholar
5. Simchen, E, Wax, Y, Pevsner, B, Erdal, M, Michel, J, Modan, M, et al. The Israeli Study of Surgical Infections (ISSI): I, methods for developing a standardized surveillance system for a multicenter study of surgical infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988;9:232–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Severijnen, AJ, Verbrugh, HA, Mintjes-de Groot, AJ, Vandenbroucke-Grauls, CMJE, van Pelt, W. Sentinel system for nosocomial infections in The Netherlands: a pilot study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:818–824.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Mintjes-de Groot, AJ, van den Berg, JM, Veerman-Brenzikofer, ML, de Boer, AS, Smook, AO. Incidence of postoperative wound infections in The Netherlands [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1998;142:22–26.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Mertens, R, van den Berg, JM, Veerman-Brenzikofer, MLV, Kurz, X, Jans, B, Klazinga, N. International comparison of results of infection surveillance: The Netherlands versus Belgium. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:574–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Gezondheidsraad. Preventie en bestrijding van ziekenhuisinfecties. Report 1990/20. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Gezondheidsraad; 1990.Google Scholar
10. van den Berg, JMJ, Veerman-Brenzikofer, MLV, Mintjes-de Groot, AJ, de Jong, M. RISICO. Registratie van Infectie Surveillance van Intensive Care Opnames. Utrecht, The Netherlands: National Organization for Quality Assurance in Hospitals; 1996.Google Scholar
11. de Boer, AS, Mintjes-de Groot, AJ, Severijnen, AJ, van den Berg, JMJ, van Pelt, W. Risk assessment for surgical-wound infections in orthopedic patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;6:402–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, Morgan, WM, Emori, TG. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:183–205.Google Scholar
13. Cruse, PJE, Foord, R. The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am 1980;60:27–40.Google Scholar
14. Olson, MM, Lee, JT. Continuous, 10-year wound-infection surveillance. Results, advantages and unanswered questions. Arch Surg 1990;125:794–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Owens, WD, Felts, JA, Spitznagel, EL. ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 1978;49:239–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Altemeier, WA, Burke, JF, Pruitt, BA, Sandusky, WR, eds. Manual on Control of Infection in Surgical Patients. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: JB Iippincott; 1984:29.Google Scholar
17. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, Morgan, WM, White, JW, Emori, TG, Hooton, TM. Identifying patients at high risk of surgical wound infection. A simple multivariate index of patient susceptibility and wound contamination. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:206–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America, Association for Practitioners in Infection Control, Centers for Disease Control, Surgical Infection Society. Consensus paper on the surveillance of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:599–605.Google Scholar
19. Mishriki, SF, Law, DJW, Jeffery, PJ. Factors affecting the incidence of postoperative wound infection. J Hosp Infect 1990;16:223–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Centraal Orgaan Tarieven in de Gezondheidszorg. Tarieven medisch specialisten. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Centraal Orgaan Tarieven in de Gezondheidszorg; 1996.Google Scholar
21. National Center for Health Statistics. International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision, Clinical Modification, volume 3. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 1980.Google Scholar
22. Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1998;16:128–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Marrone, 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
24. Werkgroep Infectie Preventie. Richtlijn 25a. In: Werkgroep Implementatie Registratie Ziekenhuisinfecties (WIRZI). Handboek infectieregistratie: handleiding registratie ziekenhuisinfecties. Utrecht, The Netherlands: National Organization for Quality Assurance in Hospitals; 1996.Google Scholar
25. Culver, DH, Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Marrone, WJ, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):152–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Goodman, LA, Kruskal, WH. Measures of Association for Cross Classifications. New York, NY: Springer; 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Moro, ML, Sommella, L, Gialli, M, Tavanti, L, Ciolli, L, Masini, R, et al. Surgical infections surveillance: results of a six-month incidence study in two Italian hospitals. Eur J Epidemiol 1991;7:641–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Holzheimer, RG, Haupt, W, Thiede, A, Schwarzkopf, A. The challenge of postoperative infections: does the surgeon make a difference? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:449–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Gaynes, RP. Surveillance of nosocomial infections: a fundamental ingredient for quality. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:475–478.Google Scholar
30. Archibald, LK, Gaynes, RP. Hospital-acquired infections in the United States. The importance of interhospital comparisons. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1997;11:245–255.Google Scholar
31. Gross, PA, Striving for benchmark infection rates: progress in control for patient mix. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):16–20.Google Scholar
32. Sijbrandij, S. Consensus totale heupprothese. Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 1988;132:578–582.Google Scholar
33. Mintjes-de Groot, AJ, van Hassel, CAN, van Linge, RH, Verbrugh, HA. Estimation of extra charges, extra nursing procedures and prolongation of stay attributable to hospital-acquired infections. Surveillance and Control of Hospital-Acquired Infections in The Netherlands. Ten-Year Experience in an Acute Care Hospital. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus University; 1996. Dissertation.Google Scholar
34. de Haas, R, Mintjes-de Groot, AJ, Geubbels, ELPE, van den Berg, JMJ, de Boer, AS. Evaluatie van gebruik van surveillanceresultaten binnen de PREZIES-ziekenhuizen. Report no. 212200006. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: National Institute of Public Health and the Environment; Utrecht, The Netherlands: National Organization for Quality Assurance in Hospitals; 1997.Google Scholar