Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:31:53.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of an Automated Surveillance to Detect Surgical-Site Infections in Patients Undergoing Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2016

Luciana B. Perdiz ,
Deborah S. Yokoe ,
Guilherme H. Furtado  and
Eduardo A. S. Medeiros
Luciana B. Perdiz*
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Committee, Division of Infectious Diseases, Hospital São Paulo, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Deborah S. Yokoe
Affiliation:
Channing Laboratory, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massacusetts, United States
Guilherme H. Furtado
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Committee, Division of Infectious Diseases, Hospital São Paulo, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Eduardo A. S. Medeiros
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Committee, Division of Infectious Diseases, Hospital São Paulo, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
*
Address correspondence to Luciana Baria Perdiz, RN, PhD, Hospital Epidemiology Committee, Division of Infectious Diseases, Hospital São Paulo, Federal University of São Paulo, 690 Napoleão de Barros St, 2nd floor, São Paulo, Brazil, 04024-002 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this retrospective study, we compared automated surveillance with conventional surveillance to detect surgical site infection after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. Automated surveillance demonstrated better efficacy than routine surveillance in SSI diagnosis, sensitivity, and predictive negative value in hip and knee arthroplasty.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:991–993

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 37 , Issue 8 , August 2016 , pp. 991 - 993
Copyright
© 2016 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

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

REFERENCES

1. Lewis, SS, Moehring, RW, Chen, LF, Sexton, DJ, Anderson, DJ. Assessing the relative burden of hospital-acquired infections in a network of community hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:1229–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Zimlichman, E, Henderson, D, Tamir, O, et al. Health care–associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the us health care system. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:2039–2046.Google Scholar
3. Klevens, RM, Edwards, JR, Richards, CL Jr., Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Pollock, DA, et al. Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep 2007;122:160–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Healthcare Safety Network, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of healthcare-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/17pscNosInfDef_current.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed April 30, 2013.Google Scholar
6. Calderwood, MS, Ma, A, Khan, YM, et al. Use of Medicare diagnosis and procedure codes to improve detection of surgical site infections following hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, and vascular surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:40–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Curtis, M, Graves, N, Birrell, F, et al. A comparison of competing methods for the detection of surgical-site infections in patients undergoing total arthroplasty of the knee, partial and total arthroplasty of hip and femoral or similar vascular bypass. J Hosp Infect 2004;57:189–193.Google Scholar
8. Yokoe, DS, Avery, TR, Platt, R, Huang, SS. Reporting surgical site infections following total hip and knee arthroplasty: impact of limiting surveillance to the operative hospital. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:1282–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Bolon, MK, Hooper, D, Stevenson, KB, et al. Improved surveillance for surgical site infections after orthopedic implantation procedures: extending applications for automated data. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:1223–1229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Inacio, MC, Paxton, EW, Chen, Y, et al. Leveraging electronic medical records for surveillance of surgical site infection in a total joint replacement population. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:351–359.Google Scholar