Key result
Risk adjustment of surgical site infection rates is essential for valid provider performance assessment, though significant improvements in methodology are still needed.
Proper risk adjustment for patient case mix is essential before using surgical site infection rates as a valid indicator of healthcare quality.
Unadjusted SSI rates may misrepresent provider performance; leaves open standardization of risk-adjustment methods.
With the introduction of quality assurance in health care delivery, there has been a proliferation of research studies that compare patient outcomes for similar conditions among many health care delivery facilities. Since the 1990s, increasing interest has been placed in the incorporation of clinical adverse events as quality indicators in hospital quality assurance programs. Adverse post-operative events, and very especially surgical site infection (SSI) rates after specific procedures, gained popularity as hospital quality indicators in the 1980s. For a SSI rate to be considered a valid indicator of the quality of care, it is essential that a proper adjustment for patient case mix be performed, so that meaningful comparisons of SSI rates can be made among surgeons, institutions, or over time. So far, a significant impediment to developing meaningful hospital-acquired infection rates that can be used for intra- and inter-hospital comparisons has been the lack of an adequate means of adjusting for case mix. This paper discusses what we have learned in the last years regarding risk adjustment of SSI rates for provider performance assessment, and identifies areas in which significant improvement is still needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fernando Martín Biscione (2009) conducted a review in Surgical site infection. Risk adjustment of surgical site infection rates was evaluated. Risk adjustment of surgical site infection rates is essential for valid provider performance assessment, though significant improvements in methodology are still needed.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: