Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 39(5): 555-562, 2018 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29553001

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDSurgical site infections (SSIs) following colorectal surgery (CRS) are among the most common healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Reduction in colorectal SSI rates is an important goal for surgical quality improvement.OBJECTIVETo examine rates of SSI in patients with and without cancer and to identify potential predictors of SSI risk following CRSDESIGNAmerican College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data files for 2011-2013 from a sample of 12 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions were combined. Pooled SSI rates for colorectal procedures were calculated and risk was evaluated. The independent importance of potential risk factors was assessed using logistic regression.SETTINGMulticenter studyPARTICIPANTSOf 22 invited NCCN centers, 11 participated (50%). Colorectal procedures were selected by principal procedure current procedural technology (CPT) code. Cancer was defined by International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes.MAIN OUTCOMEThe primary outcome of interest was 30-day SSI rate.RESULTSA total of 652 SSIs (11.06%) were reported among 5,893 CRSs. Risk of SSI was similar for patients with and without cancer. Among CRS patients with underlying cancer, disseminated cancer (SSI rate, 17.5%; odds ratio [OR], 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-2.26; P=.001), ASA score ≥3 (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.09-1.83; P=.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.06-2.53; P=.02), and longer duration of procedure were associated with development of SSI.CONCLUSIONSPatients with disseminated cancer are at a higher risk for developing SSI. ASA score >3, COPD, and longer duration of surgery predict SSI risk. Disseminated cancer should be further evaluated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in generating risk-adjusted outcomes.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:555-562.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Digestive System Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/etiology , Adult , Aged , Cohort Studies , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Databases, Factual , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Rectum/surgery , Risk Factors , United States/epidemiology
2.
Am J Infect Control ; 39(9): 716-24, 2011 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21664001

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is widely recognized as the single most effective means of reducing health care-associated infections. Implementing a credible hand hygiene program and maintaining high compliance among staff is both expected and required of hospitals. However, beyond general guidelines, few resources are available for establishing an institution-wide hand hygiene program that is both successful and sustainable over the long term. METHODS: Beginning in 2008, we completely overhauled the approach to hand hygiene at our institution. We created small teams consisting of a representative from Quality Assessment, an Infection Prevention Practitioner, and staff from a particular unit. Teams began by discussing the current barriers to hand hygiene success. They then set their own goals for hand hygiene compliance. Staff learned the World Health Organization (WHO) hand hygiene guidelines, which recently had been adopted as part of hospital infection prevention policy. Using the WHO guidelines, teams diagrammed detailed workflows for several of their most common patient care tasks. Wherever hand hygiene was indicated, the workflow was marked with a number corresponding to one or more of the WHO's "5 moments for hand hygiene." At the end of the 12-week period, staff members were trained to observe each other and began officially collecting and submitting data to Infection Prevention. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2008, our average institutional hand hygiene compliance held steady at 60%-70%. After the new program was launched in 2008, compliance reached 97% and has been maintained at this level ever since. In addition to the 19 areas of the hospital that were observed previously, 15 ambulatory facilities and 5 regional sites are now included in the data. CONCLUSION: This article describes a novel approach to measuring, monitoring, and ultimately increasing hand hygiene compliance at our hospital. Our objective is to provide concrete, practical strategies for other institutions faced with the challenge of building or revamping their own hand hygiene programs.


Subject(s)
Cross Infection/prevention & control , Hand Disinfection/methods , Hand Disinfection/standards , Health Personnel , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/organization & administration , Cross Infection/transmission , Guideline Adherence , Health Facilities , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...