Why the study?
Does continued monitoring and reporting of clean wound infection rates reduce infection rates over time?
Does continued monitoring and reporting of clean wound infection rates reduce infection rates over time?
Continuous monitoring and feedback of clean wound infection rates to surgical services is associated with a decrease in infection rates over time.
This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
A prospective four-year study on the infection rate of clean operative wounds is presented. From January 1982 to June 1985, a nurse epidemiologist and a medical team assessed 4,468 operative procedures, from the day of surgery to the patients' discharge from the hospital. The infection rate was 3.2%. A higher incidence of wound infection was detected in patients requiring emergency operations (5.1%), in drained wounds (5.4%), and in patients with conditions thought to predispose to infection, such as advanced cancer, hepatic cirrhosis, diabetes, nephrotic syndrome, previous splenectomy, and treatment with immunosuppressive drugs (7.8%). Age over 65 did not influence infection rates. There were up to tenfold differences in infection indices between surgeons performing the same clean procedures. The continued monitoring of clean wound infection rates allowed the early detection and control of infection outbreaks. Providing periodic information on infection rates to the different surgical services was associated with decreasing infection rates over time.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Stratifies clean-wound infection risk by urgency and comorbidities; supports but does not confirm benefit of ongoing surveillance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gil-Egea et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: