How to save time in surveillance without losing quality: comparison of two methods of surgical site infection surveillance in orthopaedic prosthetics in a French university hospital

Abstract

Surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance methods are not standardised and are often time-consuming. We compared an active method, based on orthopaedic department staff reporting suspected SSI, with a semi-automated method, based on computerised extraction of surgical revisions, after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Both methods allowed finding the same SSI cases. We found the same sensitivity but higher specificity with a straightforward time gain using the passive method. This represents an added value for the organisation of an effective SSI surveillance, based on existing hospital databases.

Comorbidities directly extracted from the hospital database for adjusting SSI risk in the new national semiautomated surveillance system in France: The SPICMI network

“…The main reason for this change is the time saved in collecting data, and therefore the potential for reducing costs and improving effectiveness. [5][6][7] For SSI, data collection is needed on patient case mix to allow benchmarking and comparison among surgical units. Indeed, comparing SSI rates among surgery wards requires statistical adjustment for risk factors.…”