Background Surgical site infections (SSI) are among the most frequently occurring healthcare-associated infections worldwide. Various analyses to determine risk factors have been conducted in the past, generally attributing a higher SSI-risk to male patients. However, when focusing on specific procedures, this is not always true. Our objective was to identify for which procedures male or female sex represents an independent risk factor for SSI and which parameters may explain these differences. Methods We used the database of surgical procedures from the German national nosocomial infection surveillance system. We included procedures conducted between 2008 and 2017. We excluded procedures solely executed for one sex (e.g. mastectomy) and procedures with 20,000 or fewer operations. The observed outcome was the occurrence of SSI. All models were adjusted for confounders, which were eliminated with backward selection. The following factors were included in the analysis: age, ASA score, wound contamination class, duration of surgery, and season. All models contained the investigated factor sex. Results Sixteen procedure types with 1,266,782 individual procedures and 18,824 SSI were included. Overall, the incidence rate ratio and the adjusted odds ratio for SSI were significantly higher for male patients. The included individual procedures were grouped into five surgical categories. For orthopedics and traumatology as well as abdominal surgery, SSI-rates were significantly higher for male patients. For heart and vascular surgery, SSI-rates were significantly higher for female patients. Other included surgical categories and individual procedures yielded diverse results. Similar results were found when solely analyzing deep and organ-space SSI. Multivariable analysis for attributable gender-related risk factors revealed differences with regard to underlying risk factors. Conclusions SSI-rates differ by sex for certain procedures. When examining underlying risk factors, differences between male and female patients can be demonstrated. Our analysis considered a limited number of parameters, which were not sufficient to fully explain the observed differences. Further studies are required to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic and to include gender-specific aspects into future SSI-prevention strategies. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-019-0547-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) pose a burden on healthcare providers worldwide. To prevent HAI and strengthen infection prevention and control (IPC) structures, the WHO has developed a variety of tools and guidelines. Recently, the WHO released the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF), a questionnaire-like tool designed for assessing IPC structures at the facility level. The IPCAF reflects the eight WHO core components of IPC. Data on the implementation of IPC measures in German hospitals are scarce. Therefore, it was our objective to utilize the IPCAF in order to gather information on the current state of IPC implementation in German hospitals, as well as to promote the IPCAF to a broad audience. Methods The National Reference Center for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections (NRZ) sent a translated version of the IPCAF to 1472 acute care hospitals in Germany. Data entry and transfer to the NRZ was done electronically between October and December 2018. The IPCAF was conceived in a way that depending on the selected answers a score was calculated, with 0 being the lowest possible and 800 the highest possible score. Depending on the overall score, the IPCAF allocated hospitals to four different “IPC levels”: inadequate, basic, intermediate, and advanced. Results A total of 736 hospitals provided a complete dataset and were included in the data analysis. The overall median score of all hospitals was 690, which corresponded to an advanced level of IPC. Only three hospitals (0.4%) fell into the category “basic”, with 111 hospitals (15.1%) being “intermediate” and 622 hospitals (84.5%) being “advanced”. In no case was the category “inadequate” allocated. More profound differences were found between the respective core components. Components on multimodal strategies and workload, staffing, ward design and bed occupancy revealed the lowest scores. Conclusions IPC key aspects in general are well established in Germany. Potentials for improvement were identified particularly with regard to workload and staffing. Insufficient implementation of multimodal strategies was found to be another relevant deficit. Our survey represents a successful attempt at promoting the IPCAF and encouraging hospitals to utilize WHO tools for self-assessment. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-019-0532-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.