Beyond 30 days: Does limiting the duration of surgical site infection follow-up limit detection?

Concern over consistency and completeness of surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance has increased due to public reporting of hospital SSI rates and imminent non-payment rules for hospitals that do not meet national benchmarks. Already, hospitals no longer receive additional payment from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for certain infections following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, orthopedic procedures, and bariatric surgery. One major concern is incomplete and differential post-discharge surveillance. At present, substantial variation exists in how and whether hospitals identify SSI events after the hospitalization in which the surgery occurred. Parameters used for SSI surveillance such as the duration of the window of time that surveillance takes place following the surgical procedure can impact the completeness of surveillance data. Determination of the optimal surveillance time period involves balancing the potential increased case ascertainment associated with a longer follow-up period with the increased resources that would be required. Currently, the time window for identifying potentially preventable SSIs related to events at the time of surgery is not fully standardized. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Surveillance Network (NHSN) requires a 365-day postoperative surveillance period for procedures involving implants and a 30-day period for non-implant procedures. In contrast, the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) systems employ 30-day post-operative surveillance regardless of implant. As consensus builds towards national quality measures for hospital-specific SSI rates, it will be important to assess the frequency of events beyond the 30-day post-surgical window that may quantify the value of various durations of surveillance, and ultimately inform the choice of specific outcome measures

Use of Medicare claims to rank hospitals by surgical site infection risk following coronary artery bypass graft surgery

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether longitudinal insurer claims data allow reliable identification of elevated hospital surgical site infection (SSI) rates.DesignWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in US hospitals performing at least 80 procedures in 2005. Hospitals were assigned to deciles by using case mix-adjusted probabilities of having an SSI-related inpatient or outpatient claim code within 60 days of surgery. We then reviewed medical records of randomly selected patients to assess whether chart-confirmed SSI risk was higher in hospitals in the worst deciles compared with the best deciles.ParticipantsFee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who underwent CABG in these hospitals in 2005.ResultsWe evaluated 114,673 patients who underwent CABG in 671 hospitals. In the best decile, 7.8% (958/12,307) of patients had an SSI-related code, compared with 24.8% (2,747/11,068) in the worst decile ([Formula: see text]). Medical record review confirmed SSI in 40% (388/980) of those with SSI-related codes. In the best decile, the chart-confirmed annual SSI rate was 3.2%, compared with 9.4% in the worst decile, with an adjusted odds ratio of SSI of 2.7 (confidence interval, 2.2-3.3; [Formula: see text]) for CABG performed in a worst-decile hospital compared with a best-decile hospital.ConclusionsClaims data can identify groups of hospitals with unusually high or low post-CABG SSI rates. Assessment of claims is more reproducible and efficient than current surveillance methods. This example of secondary use of routinely recorded electronic health information to assess quality of care can identify hospitals that may benefit from prevention programs