No 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.

The risk of a needle stick or sharps injury in the operating room (OR) is high due to conditions such as minimal physical protective measures, frequent transfer of sharps, and reliance on human attention and skill for injury avoidance. An ergonomic process improvement project was initiated at a large metro teaching hospital to identify ergonomic risk factors for these OR injuries. To maximize the engagement of the front- end users, an ergonomic process improvement (EPI) team was developed, consisting of representatives from participating OR teams, an employee health nurse and two ergonomists. Surveys, observations, and interviews were conducted to quantify injury risk for the OR teams, evaluate barriers to best practice adherence, and identify opportunities for targeted interventions. Risk mapping was completed for the surgeons, surgical techs and OR nurses identifying double gloving and safe passing zone as areas in need of improvement. Through observation and interviews, researchers identified physical factors relating to musculoskeletal pain and cognitive factors leading to distractions as safety risk concerns. The overall success of the EPI was the engagement of the OR teams and surgeons in the process of identifying risk factors and potential opportunities for ergonomic solutions related to cognitive workload, physical workload, teamwork, and work design for injury prevention. The risk factors identified will provide the basis for developing targeted, effective interventions for eliminating injuries from needles and sharps within the OR.

Patient safety improvement efforts across the country intend to address the threat of medical errors that lead to patient morbidity and mortality. Many hospital-based patient safety programs focus on team tools and skills to support the interdisciplinary nature of healthcare delivery. This institution utilizes two patient safety programs with different groups of professionals and medical trainees. The aim of our research was to identify tool and skill compatibility between the two programs for future integration into interprofessional clinical simulation-based training experiences. Two researchers conducted an independent content analysis of the tools and skills in the two programs to: 1) identify the similarities and differences among tools and skills, and, 2) categorize their potential for integration into clinical simulation-based training. The two programs had six common tools, a majority of which were communication-based. Over half the tools were team-focused. Five common team tools (Brief, SBAR, Check-Back, CUS, and Debrief) were identified for integration in interprofessional clinical simulation-based training experiences.

No abstract