ISSUED ON BEHALF OF DE MONTFORD UNIVERSITY, LEICESTER, UK -- Patients recovering from surgery get infections far more often than is being reported, a new study led by De Montfort University has found.
Infection prevention specialists are now calling on the Department of Health to bring in a clear and standardised system for hospitals to try to identify the true scale of surgical infections.
They say a study of the way in which NHS hospital trusts in England has shown "worrying inconsistencies" between hospitals in how they defined surgical site infections and how rigorously they looked for them. As a result, published infection rates for hospitals do not always give a true picture.
The reasons hospitals gave for not submitting data was that the surveillance system was flawed and unwieldy and they didn't trust the system
Their paper, published today in the Journal of Hospital Infection, casts further doubt on the reliability of the national surgical site infection surveillance scheme in England.
Lead researcher Professor Judith Tanner of De Montfort University said "The national SSI surveillance system in England consistently under-reports the true scale of surgical infection and gives a false sense of security. This study shows there are so many inconsistencies that it's not possible to benchmark hospitals against the English national surgical site infection data".
Specialists at De Montfort University, Leicester; Southport and Newcastle-upon-Tyne universities sent out a questionnaire to all 156 NHS hospital trusts in England asking how they collected and reported data on post-operative wound infection for the national surgical site infection surveillance scheme. Replies were received from 106 (68%).
The results showed worrying inconsistencies between hospitals. For example, trusts which actively extended their surveillance to patients who had had knee replacement, after they had been discharged from hospital, reported an infection rate of 4.1%; hospitals that did not look so hard reported a lower rate, 1.5%.
The authors suggested that in order to identify the true scale of surgical infections, hospitals should contact every single patient, by letter or phone within 30 days after surgery.
Prof Tanner said: "The harder you look, the more that you find. Common sense tells you this and now we have demonstrated that with this study. Perversely, hospitals that conduct robust and high quality surveillance are penalized under the current system".
Surgical wound infections are the 2nd or 3rd most common healthcare associated infection, and one of the most preventable. A hospital's rates will depend on the definition used, whether these are picked up before the patient leaves hospital or if re-admitted because of an infection, and how rigorously hospitals search for infections amongst patients who have left hospital. Post-discharge surveillance is essential as patients now leave hospital very soon after their operation, and failure to do this will inevitably result in underestimation of the actual infection rate.
In 1997, a voluntary surveillance scheme was established allowing hospitals in England to report infections in wound surgical operations. It would enable hospitals to compare their own infection rates against a benchmark, and to use this information to improve the quality of patient care. It is administered and run by the Health Protection Agency.
In 2004, the scheme was extended to make participation in surveillance after orthopaedic surgery mandatory for a minimum of three months a year. In 2008, the scheme was extended to include patients re-admitted to hospital with surgical wound infections.
Surgical infection rates reported by the scheme were however often noticeably lower than rates reported from published research studies. In 2009, after reviewing the scheme, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that the Department of Health did not have an understanding of the true scale of SSIs in England because of a lack of decent data. The scheme continues.
There was non-compliance with the schemes' protocol and definitions:
Notes for editors
"A benchmark too far: findings from a national survey of surgical site infection surveillance" by J. Tanner, W. Padley, M. Kiernan, D. Leaper, P. Norrie, R. Baggott; appears in the Journal of Hospital Infection, Volume 83, Issue 2 (February 2013), published by Elsevier.
Full texts of the article is available to credentialed journalists upon request; or contact for more information please contact the De Montfort University Media Office on +44 116 2577674 or email@example.com
About Journal of Hospital Infection
Journal of Hospital Infection is the official journal of the Healthcare Infection Society,and is published on its behalf by Elsevier Ltd. The Journal seeks to promote collaboration between the many disciplines in infection control in different countries resulting in multidisciplinary and international coverage of the latest developments in this crucial area.
Elsevier is a world-leading provider of scientific, technical and medical information products and services. The company works in partnership with the global science and health communities to publish more than 2,000 journals, including The Lancet and Cell, and close to 20,000 book titles, including major reference works from Mosby and Saunders. Elsevier's online solutions include ScienceDirect, Scopus, Reaxys, ClinicalKey and Mosby's Nursing Suite, which enhance the productivity of science and health professionals, and the SciVal suite and MEDai's Pinpoint Review, which help research and health care institutions deliver better outcomes more cost-effectively.
A global business headquartered in Amsterdam, Elsevier employs 7,000 people worldwide. The company is part of Reed Elsevier Group PLC, a world-leading provider of professional information solutions in the Science, Medical, Legal and Risk and Business sectors, which is jointly owned by Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. The ticker symbols are REN (Euronext Amsterdam), REL (London Stock Exchange), RUK and ENL (New York Stock Exchange).
De Montfort University Media Office
+44 116 2078353
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.