Literature DB >> 28148657

Orthopaedic surgical site infection surveillance in NHS England: national audit of current practice.

E K Tissingh1, A Sudlow1, A Jones1, J F Nolan1.   

Abstract

AIMS: The importance of accurate identification and reporting of surgical site infection (SSI) is well recognised but poorly defined. Public Health England (PHE) mandated collection of orthopaedic SSI data in 2004. Data submission is required in one of four categories (hip prosthesis, knee prosthesis, repair of neck of femur, reduction of long bone fracture) for one quarter per year. Trusts are encouraged to carry out post-discharge surveillance but this is not mandatory. Recent papers in the orthopaedic literature have highlighted the importance of SSI surveillance and the heterogeneity of surveillance methods. However, details of current orthopaedic SSI surveillance practice has not been described or quantified. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All 147 NHS trusts in England were audited using a structured questionnaire. Data was collected in the following categories: data collection; data submission to PHE; definitions used; resource constraints; post-discharge surveillance and SSI rates in the four PHE categories. The response rate was 87.7%.
RESULTS: Variation in practice was clear in all categories in terms of methods and timings of data collection and data submission. There was little agreement on SSI definitions. At least six different definitions were used, some trusts using more than one definition. Post-discharge surveillance was carried out by 62% of respondents but there was again variation in both the methods and staff used. More than half of the respondents felt that SSI surveillance in their unit was limited by resource constraints. SSI rates ranged from 0% to 10%.
CONCLUSION: This paper quantifies the heterogeneity of SSI surveillance in England. It highlights the importance of adequate resourcing and the unreliability of relying on voluntary data collection and submission. Conformity of definitions and methods are recommended to enable meaningful SSI data to be collated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:171-4. ©2017 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arthroplasty; Infection; NHS; Surgical site surveillance

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28148657     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ-2016-0420.R1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  4 in total

1.  Antimicrobial prophylaxis is critical for preventing surgical site infection.

Authors:  Gary Duclos; Laurent Zieleskiewicz; Marc Leone
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Association between Allogeneic Blood Transfusion and Wound Infection after Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Ashish Taneja; Ahmed El-Bakoury; Hoa Khong; Pam Railton; Rajrishi Sharma; Kelly Dean Johnston; Shannon Puloski; Christopher Smith; James Powell
Journal:  J Bone Jt Infect       Date:  2019-04-20

3.  Underestimation of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA and MSSA) carriage associated with standard culturing techniques: One third of carriers missed.

Authors:  S T J Tsang; M P McHugh; D Guerendiain; P J Gwynne; J Boyd; A H R W Simpson; T S Walsh; I F Laurenson; K E Templeton
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 5.853

4.  The biofilm eradication activity of acetic acid in the management of periprosthetic joint infection.

Authors:  S T J Tsang; P J Gwynne; M P Gallagher; A H R W Simpson
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2018-09-15       Impact factor: 5.853

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.