Evaluation of routinely reported surgical site infections against microbiological culture results: a tool to identify patient groups where diagnosis and treatment may be improved

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surgeons may improve their decision making by assessing the extent to which their initial clinical diagnosis of a surgical site infection (SSI) was supported by culture results. Aim of the present study was to evaluate routinely reported SSI by surgeons against microbiological culture results, to identify patient groups with lower agreement where decision making may be improved.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>701 admissions with SSI were reported by surgeons in a university medical centre in the period 1997-2005, which were retrospectively checked for microbiological culture results. Reporting a SSI was conditional on treatment being given (e.g. antibiotics) and was classified by severity. To identify specific patient groups, patients were classified according to the surgery group of the first operation during admission (e.g. trauma).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of all reported SSI, 523 (74.6%) had a positive culture result, 102 (14.6%) a negative culture result and 76 (10.8%) were classified as unknown culture result (due to no culture taken). Given a known culture result, reported SSI with positive culture results less often concerned trauma patients (16% versus 26%, X²= 4.99 p = 0.03) and less severe SSI (49% versus 85%, X²= 10.11 p < 0.01) suggesting that a more conservative approach may be warranted in these patients. The trauma surgeons themselves perceived to have become too liberal in administering antibiotics (and reporting SSI).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Routine reporting of SSI was mostly supported by culture results. However, this support was less often found in trauma patients and less severe SSI, thereby giving surgeons feedback that diagnosis and treatment may be improved in these cases.</p

Is the impact of hospital performance data greater in patients who have compared hospitals?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Public information on average has limited impact on patients' hospital choice. However, the impact may be greater in consumers who have compared hospitals prior to their hospital choice. We therefore assessed whether patients who have compared hospitals based their hospital choice mainly on public information, rather than e.g. advice of their general practitioner and consider other information important than patients who have not compared hospitals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>337 new surgical patients completed an internet-based questionnaire. They were asked whether they had compared hospitals prior to their hospital choice and which factors influenced their choice. They were also asked to select between four and ten items of hospital information (total: 41 items) relevant for their future hospital choice. These were subsequently used in a hospital choice experiment in which participants were asked to compare hospitals in an Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint analysis to estimate which of the hospital characteristics had the highest Relative Importance (RI).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients who have compared hospitals more often used public information for their hospital choice than patients who have not compared hospitals (12.7% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001). However, they still mostly relied on their own (47.9%) and other people's experiences (31%) rather than to base their decision on public information. Both groups valued physician's expertise (RI 20.2 [16.6-24.8] in patients comparing hospitals vs. 16.5 [14.2-18.8] in patients not comparing hospitals) and waiting time (RI 15.1 [10.7-19.6] vs. 15.6 [13.2-17.9] respectively) as most important public information. Patients who have compared hospitals assigned greater importance to information on wound infections (p = 0.010) and respect for patients (p = 0.022), but lower importance to hospital distance (p = 0.041).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Public information has limited impact on patient's hospital choice, even in patients who have actually compared hospitals prior to hospital choice.</p

Light smoking at base-line predicts a higher mortality risk to women than to men; evidence from a cohort with long follow-up

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence as to whether smoking is more harmful to women than to men. The UK Cotton Workers’ Cohort was recruited in the 1960s and contained a high proportion of men and women smokers who were well matched in terms of age, job and length of time in job. The cohort has been followed up for 42 years. METHODS: Mortality in the cohort was analysed using an individual relative survival method and Cox regression. Whether smoking, ascertained at baseline in the 1960s, was more hazardous to women than to men was examined by estimating the relative risk ratio women to men, smokers to never smoked, for light (1–14), medium (15–24), heavy (25+ cigarettes per day) and former smoking. RESULTS: For all-cause mortality relative risk ratios were 1.35 for light smoking at baseline (95% CI 1.07-1.70), 1.15 for medium smoking (95% CI 0.89-1.49) and 1.00 for heavy smoking (95% CI 0.63-1.61). Relative risk ratios for light smoking at baseline for circulatory system disease was 1.42 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.98) and for respiratory disease was 1.89 (95% CI 0.99 to 3.63). Heights of participants provided no explanation for the gender difference. CONCLUSIONS: Light smoking at baseline was shown to be significantly more hazardous to women than to men but the effect decreased as consumption increased indicating a dose response relationship. Heavy smoking was equally hazardous to both genders. This result may help explain the conflicting evidence seen elsewhere. However gender differences in smoking cessation may provide an alternative explanation

Accelerated decline in lung function in smoking women with airway obstruction: SAPALDIA 2 cohort study

BACKGROUND: The aim was to determine if effects from smoking on lung function measured over 11 years differ between men and women. METHODS: In a prospective population based cohort study (Swiss Study on Air Pollution and Lung Diseases in Adults) current smokers in 1991 (18 – 60 yrs) were reassessed in 2002 (n = 1792). Multiple linear regression was used to estimate effects from pack-years of cigarettes smoked to 1991 and mean packs of cigarettes smoked per day between 1991 and 2002 on change in lung volume and flows over the 11 years. RESULTS: In both sexes, packs smoked between assessments were related to lung function decline but pack-years smoked before 1991 were not. Mean annual decline in FEV(1 )was -10.4 mL(95%CI -15.3, -5.5) per pack per day between assessments in men and -13.8 mL(95%CI-19.5,-8.1) in women. Decline per pack per day between 1991 and 2002 was lower in women who smoked in 1991 but quit before 2002 compared to persistent smokers (-6.4 vs -11.6 mL, p = 0.05) but this was not seen in men (-14.3 vs -8.8 mL p = 0.49). Smoking related decline was accelerated in men and women with airway obstruction, particularly in women where decline in FEV(1 )was three fold higher in participants with FEV1/FVC<0.70 compared to other women (-39.4 vs -12.2 mL/yr per pack per day, p < 0.002). CONCLUSION: There are differences in effects from smoking on lung function between men and women. Lung function recovers faster in women quitters than in men. Women current smokers with airway obstruction experience a greater smoking related decline in lung function than men

Hospital deaths and adverse events in Brazil

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Adverse events are considered a major international problem related to the performance of health systems. Evaluating the occurrence of adverse events involves, as any other outcome measure, determining the extent to which the observed differences can be attributed to the patient's risk factors or to variations in the treatment process, and this in turn highlights the importance of measuring differences in the severity of the cases. The current study aims to evaluate the association between deaths and adverse events, adjusted according to patient risk factors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study is based on a random sample of 1103 patient charts from hospitalizations in the year 2003 in 3 teaching hospitals in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The methodology involved a retrospective review of patient charts in two stages - screening phase and evaluation phase. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between hospital deaths and adverse events.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The overall mortality rate was 8.5%, while the rate related to the occurrence of an adverse event was 2.9% (32/1103) and that related to preventable adverse events was 2.3% (25/1103). Among the 94 deaths analyzed, 34% were related to cases involving adverse events, and 26.6% of deaths occurred in cases whose adverse events were considered preventable. The models tested showed good discriminatory capacity. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR 11.43) and the odds ratio adjusted for patient risk factors (OR 8.23) between death and preventable adverse event were high.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite discussions in the literature regarding the limitations of evaluating preventable adverse events based on peer review, the results presented here emphasize that adverse events are not only prevalent, but are associated with serious harm and even death. These results also highlight the importance of risk adjustment and multivariate models in the study of adverse events.</p

COLOR CODED TISSUE CHARACTERIZATION BY 40 MHZ INTRAVASCULAR ULTRASOUND RELIABLY IDENTIFIES PLAQUE COMPOSITION COMPARISON WITH 64 SLICE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

In The Netherlands, cascade screening to identify patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) has been introduced in 1994; a nationwide screening programme is currently ongoing to detect all - approximately 40 000 - carriers by molecular screening. Active identification by DNA testing has social implications such as difficulties in obtaining life and disability insurance. In The Netherlands, insurance companies are restricted in the use of genetic information of their clients by the Medical Examination Act (1998). Within the scope of this specific law, the Foundation for the Identification of Persons with Inherited Hypercholesterolaemia, the patient support association, representatives of the medical profession as well as insurers designed guidelines for risk assessment of mortality and morbidity of FH carriers. Risk assessment should be based on phenotype, that is, lipoprotein profile and the presence of classical cardiovascular risk, instead of the LDL receptor gene mutation. Applicants with FH should be accepted at normal rates if LDL-c levels are <4.0 mmol/l, in the absence of additional risk factors. After implementation of these guidelines, the number of complaints about insurance contracts has decreased markedl