Reducing Surgical Site Infections in a Children’s Hospital: The Fuzzy Elements of Change

Automated Audit and Feedback Process and Results

Each surgeon and anesthetist received an automated email the morning after the procedure detailing whether antibiotics had been indicated and whether they had been given or held appropriately. To accomplish this required that all surgical procedures (entered on SIS by the nurses) were matched to the guidelines. With the assistance of each division and department, each SIS procedural code was matched to the guideline as to whether antibiotics were indicated or not. In the case of multiple procedures, if any of the procedures warranted antibiotics then antibiotics were indicated for that patient. The automatic email sent to the staff acknowledged potential errors due to incorrect matching of the surgical procedure to guideline, incorrect charting by nurses, and incorrect indication of the guideline to receive (or not receive) antibiotics.

The response to this email had several impacts. First, the response identified many errors related to matching of SIS procedure to guidelines. Second, the email served as impetus to improve nurse charting. Third, through the automated emails we determined that some patients were on antibiotics for a pre-existing infection. Thus a separate notation in the SIS charting by the nursing staff was added to indicate a pre-existing infection (to prevent an automated email). Fourth, while circulation of the guidelines to all divisions and departments had provided little feedback to the final draft of guideline, responses to the emails resulted in refinement of ambiguities in guideline related to procedure description, and in some cases changes to the guideline based on the use of antibiotics. Fifth, the emails improved compliance with the guideline [3].

While audit and feedback resulted in a substantial rise in the appropriate use and timing of antibiotics, the nurses were often harassed about their charting, placing them in the uncomfortable position of seen to be enforcing the guideline. Also, some surgeons vehemently disliked the emails, pointing to occasional inaccuracies of the emails. Finally, the audit and feedback provided feedback after the surgical event, and while increasing attention on the guideline, did nothing for the individual patient. An alternative proposed strategy was that at the time of SIS charting of the procedure that SIS could serve as a decision tool and indicate whether antibiotics were indicated, and indicate the correct antibiotic. However SIS is proprietary software and we were unable to make the necessary programming changes.

Measuring SSI Rate

Concurrently with focusing on the process measures of the appropriate use of antibiotics, we also developed a mechanism to measure SSI [4]. Prior to this quality improvement initiative, the existing mechanism to measure institutional SSI was based on daily visits to surgical wards by infection control practitioners (ICPs) supplemented by identification of patients by positive wound cultures in microbiology. Due to the expense of active monitoring across all surgical disciplines, this program had been restricted to neurosurgery, cardiac surgery, and spine surgery (areas of high risk for SSI identified in the past). Because the hospital did not have the resources to expand ICP monitoring to all surgical areas, an alternative strategy of using health record coders was explored as a means to provide comprehensive rates of SSI for all disciplines.

The first step in using health records as a means to identify SSI was to perform a review of all SSIs identified by health records in the 3 priority areas monitored by the ICPs. All health records identified “SSI” were reviewed by a surgeon to determine which were and were not SSI, according to the Centers for Disease Control criteria [5]. The review identified that the International Classification of Disease (ICD−10) coding for SSI included, in addition to SSI, multiple types of infections such as sepsis and central line infections. The review also identified that the health record coders had no specific criteria and therefore were variable in how they coded “SSI.” The review identified that the ICPs missed some true infections that were identified by health record coders.

To address the ambiguity of ICD coding, extension codes to the ICD codes were added to code specifically for SSI. To address the lack of criteria for SSI, the health record coders were trained by ICPs to use Centers for Disease Control criteria for SSI [5]. While both of these steps improved the identification of SSI by health record coders, a subsequent chart audit identified false positive and false negative recording of SSI by both ICPs and health record coders. The task force accepted that no method was completely accurate and that health record coding for SSI was financially feasible and provided SSI rates for all surgical disciplines. The task force concluded that health record coding would serve the purpose of monitoring trends in SSIs.

Impact of Guideline Compliance

The final step in the quality improvement initiative of reducing SSI was to evaluate trends in use of prophylactic antibiotics and the relationship with SSI. Through the multiple iterative strategies described above, the administration of an antibiotic within an hour of the incision increased to over 80% of patients. To evaluate the impact of guideline compliance, approximately 9000 procedures were reviewed over a 21-month period [4]. In the approximately 4500 patients who had a guideline-based indication to receive antibiotics, the 80% who received correct administration of an antibiotic within 1 hour of the incision had a reduction in the rate of SSI by one third compared with the 20% who didn’t receive antibiotics. Of the approximately 4500 patients who did not have an indication for antibiotics, 80% did not receive antibiotics (20% did receive despite no indication) and had a (statistically insignificant) lower rate of SSI compared to the 20% who received antibiotics inappropriately. In summary, only 50% of children having surgery had an indication for antibiotics, and not receiving antibiotics saved money, reduced antibiotic exposure, and did not increase the rate of SSI. In the 50% of patients who received antibiotics according to the guidelines the rate of SSI was reduced by 30% [6].