Diminishing surgical site infections after colorectal surgery with surgical care improvement project: is it time to move on?

Leveraging a nationwide infection surveillance program to implement a colorectal surgical site infection reduction bundle: a pragmatic, prospective, and multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Bundled interventions usually reduce surgical site infection (SSI) when implemented at single hospitals, but the feasibility of their implementation at the nationwide level and their clinical results are not well established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pragmatic interventional study to analyze the implementation and outcomes of a colorectal surgery care bundle within a nationwide quality improvement program. The bundle consisted of antibiotic prophylaxis, oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP), mechanical bowel preparation, laparoscopy, normothermia, and a wound retractor. Control group (CG) and Intervention group (IG) were compared. Overall SSI, superficial (S-SSI), deep (D-SSI), and organ/space (O/S-SSI) rates were analyzed. Secondary endpoints included microbiology, 30-day mortality, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 37 849 procedures were included, 19 655 in the CG and 18 194 in the IG. In all, 5462 SSIs (14.43%) were detected: 1767 S-SSI (4.67%), 847 D-SSI (2.24%), and 2838 O/S-SSI (7.5%). Overall SSI fell from 18.38% (CG) to 10.17% (IG), odds ratio (OR) of 0.503 [0.473-0.524]. O/S-SSI rates were 9.15% (CG) and 5.72% (IG), OR of 0.602 [0.556-0.652]. The overall SSI rate was 16.71% when no measure was applied and 6.23% when all six were used. Bundle implementation reduced the probability of overall SSI (OR: 0.331; CI 95 : 0.242-0.453), and also O/S-SSI rate (OR: 0.643; CI 95 : 0.416-0.919). In the univariate analysis, all measures except normothermia were associated with a reduction in overall SSI, while only laparoscopy, OAP, and mechanical bowel preparation were related to a decrease in O/S-SSI. Laparoscopy, wound retractor, and OAP decreased overall SSI and O/S-SSI in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort study, the application of a specific care bundle within a nationwide nosocomial infection surveillance system proved feasible and resulted in a significant reduction in overall and O/S-SSI rates in the elective colon and rectal surgery. The OR for SSI fell between 1.5 and 3 times after the implementation of the bundle.

Surgical Wound Complications after Colorectal Surgery with Single-Use Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Surgical Dressing over Closed Incisions: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Global studies indicate that surgical site infections (SSIs) are a major healthcare challenge within hospitals and can have a profound impact on patient quality of life and healthcare costs. Closed-incision negative-pressure therapy (ciNPT) has been reported to provide positive clinical benefits for patients with various incisions, including those following colorectal surgeries.

METHODS

Investigators performed a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial to evaluate complications of surgical incisions in patients who received a ciNPT dressing versus a conventional surgical dressing (control) over their closed incision following colorectal surgery. The incidence of SSI was determined at 7, 15, and 30 days postsurgery.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients participated in the study. Results showed that the SSI rate on day 7 was lower in the ciNPT group versus the control group (10/75 [13.3%] vs 17/73 [23.3%]), but this difference was not statistically significant. On day 15, the SSI rate was 12/75 (16.0%) in the ciNPT group versus 21/73 (28.8%) in the control group; however, this difference was only marginally statistically significant (P = .0621). At 1 month, the SSI rate remained lower in the ciNPT group (13/75 [17.3%] vs 21/73 [28.8%], P = .0983) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies with larger population sizes are necessary to determine the impact of ciNPT on patients' incisions after colorectal surgery.

Implementation interventions in preventing surgical site infections in abdominal surgery: a systematic review

Background

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are highly prevalent in abdominal surgery despite evidence-based prevention measures. Since guidelines are not self-implementing and SSI-preventive compliance is often insufficient, implementation interventions have been developed to promote compliance. This systematic review aims to identify implementation interventions used in abdominal surgery to prevent SSIs and determine associations with SSI reductions.

Methods

Literature was searched in April 2018 (Medline/PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection). Implementation interventions were classified using the implementation subcategories of the EPOC Taxonomy (Cochrane Review Group Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, EPOC). Additionally, an effectiveness analysis was conducted on the association between the number of implementation interventions, specific compositions thereof, and absolute and relative SSI risk reductions.

Results

Forty studies were included. Implementation interventions used most frequently (“top five”) were audit and feedback (80% of studies), organizational culture (70%), monitoring the performance of healthcare delivery (65%), reminders (53%), and educational meetings (45%). Twenty-nine studies (72.5%) used a multimodal strategy (≥3 interventions). An effectiveness analysis revealed significant absolute and relative SSI risk reductions. E.g., numerically, the largest absolute risk reduction of 10.8% pertained to thirteen studies using 3–5 interventions (p < .001); however, this was from a higher baseline rate than those with fewer or more interventions. The largest relative risk reduction was 52.4% for studies employing the top five interventions, compared to 43.1% for those not including these. Furthermore, neither the differences in risk reduction between studies with different numbers of implementation interventions (bundle size) nor between studies including the top five interventions (vs. not) were significant.

Conclusion

In SSI prevention in abdominal surgery, mostly standard bundles of implementation interventions are applied. While an effectiveness analysis of differences in SSI risk reduction by number and type of interventions did not render conclusive results, use of standard interventions such as audit and feedback, organizational culture, monitoring, reminders, and education at least does not seem to represent preventive malpractice. Further research should determine implementation interventions, or bundles thereof, which are most effective in promoting compliance with SSI-preventive measures in abdominal surgery.

Implementation strategies to reduce surgical site infections: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) portend high patient morbidity and mortality. Although evidence-based clinical interventions can reduce SSIs, they are not reliably delivered in practice, and data are limited on the best approach to improve adherence.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize implementation strategies aimed at improving adherence to evidence-based interventions that reduce SSIs.

DESIGN

Systematic reviewMethods:We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, the WHO Regional databases, AFROLIB, and Africa-Wide for studies published between January 1990 and December 2015. The Effective Practice and Organization Care (EPOC) criteria were used to identify an acceptable-quality study design. We used structured forms to extract data on implementation strategies and grouped them into an implementation model called the "Four Es" framework (ie, engage, educate, execute, and evaluate).

RESULTS

In total, 125 studies met our inclusion criteria, but only 8 studies met the EPOC criteria, which limited our ability to identify best practices. Most studies used multifaceted strategies to improve adherence with evidence-based interventions. Engagement strategies included multidisciplinary work and strong leadership involvement. Education strategies included various approaches to introduce evidence-based practices to clinicians and patients. Execution strategies standardized the interventions into simple tasks to facilitate uptake. Evaluation strategies assessed adherence with evidence-based interventions and patient outcomes, providing feedback of performance to providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifaceted implementation strategies represent the most common approach to facilitating the adoption of evidence-based practices. We believe that this summary of implementation strategies complements existing clinical guidelines and may accelerate efforts to reduce SSIs.

Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary patient care bundle for reducing surgical-site infections

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infection (SSI) is associated with significant healthcare costs. To reduce the high rate of SSI among patients undergoing colorectal surgery at a cancer centre, a comprehensive care bundle was implemented and its efficacy tested.

METHODS

A pragmatic study involving three phases (baseline, implementation and sustainability) was conducted on patients treated consecutively between 2013 and 2016. The intervention included 13 components related to: bowel preparation; oral and intravenous antibiotic selection and administration; skin preparation, disinfection and hygiene; maintenance of normothermia during surgery; and use of clean instruments for closure. SSI risk was evaluated by means of a preoperative calculator, and effectiveness was assessed using interrupted time-series regression.

RESULTS

In a population with a mean BMI of 30 kg/m² , diabetes mellitus in 17·5 per cent, and smoking history in 49·3 per cent, SSI rates declined from 11·0 to 4·1 per cent following implementation of the intervention bundle (P = 0·001). The greatest reductions in SSI rates occurred in patients at intermediate or high risk of SSI: from 10·3 to 4·7 per cent (P = 0·006) and from 19 to 2 per cent (P < 0·001) respectively. Wound care modifications were very different in the implementation phase (43·2 versus 24·9 per cent baseline), including use of an overlying surface vacuum dressing (17·2 from 1·4 per cent baseline) or leaving wounds partially open (13·2 from 6·7 per cent baseline). As a result, the biggest difference was in wound-related rather than organ-space SSI. The median length of hospital stay decreased from 7 (i.q.r. 5-10) to 6 (5-9) days (P = 0·002). The greatest reduction in hospital stay was seen in patients at high risk of SSI: from 8 to 6 days (P < 0·001). SSI rates remained low (4·5 per cent) in the sustainability phase.

CONCLUSION

Meaningful reductions in SSI can be achieved by implementing a multidisciplinary care bundle at a hospital-wide level.

An Effective Bundled Approach Reduces Surgical Site Infections in a High-Outlier Colorectal Unit

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections are the most common hospital-acquired infection after colorectal surgery, increasing morbidity, mortality, and hospital costs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of preventive measures on colorectal surgical site infection rates in a high-volume institution that performs inherent high-risk procedures.

DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a high-volume, specialized colorectal surgery department.

PATIENTS

The Prospective Surgical Site Infection Prevention Bundle Project included 14 preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative measures to reduce surgical site infection occurrence after colorectal surgery. Surgical site infections within 30 days of the index operation were examined for patients during the 1-year period after the surgical site infection prevention bundle was implemented. The data collection and outcomes for this period were compared with the year immediately before the implementation of bundle elements. All of the patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery by a total of 17 surgeons were included. The following procedures were excluded from the analysis to obtain a homogeneous patient population: ileostomy closure and anorectal and enterocutaneous fistula repair.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgical site infection occurring within 30 days of the index operation was measured. Surgical site infection-related outcomes after implementation of the bundle (bundle February 2014 to February 2015) were compared with same period a year before the implementation of bundle elements (prebundle February 2013 to February 2014).

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2015, 2250 abdominal colorectal surgical procedures were performed, including 986 (43.8%) during the prebundle period and 1264 (56.2%) after the bundle project. Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar in both periods. Compliance with preventive measures ranged between 75% and 99% during the bundle period. The overall surgical site infection rate decreased from 11.8% prebundle to 6.6% at the bundle period (P < 0.001). Although a decrease for all types of surgical site infections was observed after the bundle implementation, a significant reduction was achieved in the organ-space subgroup (5.5%-1.7%; P < 0.001).

LIMITATION

We were unable to predict the specific contributions the constituent bundle interventions made to the surgical site infection reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

The prospective Surgical Site Infection Prevention Bundle Project resulted in a substantial decline in surgical site infection rates in our department. Collaborative and enduring efforts among multiple providers are critical to achieve a sustained reduction See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A438.

Bundles Prevent Surgical Site Infections After Colorectal Surgery: Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal surgeries (CRS) have one of the highest rates of surgical site infections (SSIs) with rates 15 to >30%. Prevention "bundles" or sets of evidence-based interventions are structured ways to improve patient outcomes. The aim sof this study is to evaluate CRS SSI prevention bundles, bundle components, and implementation and compliance strategies.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of studies with pre- and post-implementation data was conducted to assess the impact of bundles on SSI rates (superficial, deep, and organ/space). Subgroup analysis of bundle components identified optimal bundle designs.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies (51,413 patients) were identified and 23 (17,557 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. A SSI risk reduction of 40% (p < 0.001) was noted with 44% for superficial SSI (p < 0.001) and 34% for organ/space (p = 0.048). Bundles with sterile closure trays (58.6 vs 33.1%), MBP with oral antibiotics (55.4 vs 31.8%), and pre-closure glove changes (56.9 vs 28.5%) had significantly greater SSI risk reduction.

CONCLUSION

Bundles can effectively reduce the risk of SSIs after CRS, by fostering a cohesive environment, standardization, and reduction in operative variance. If implemented successfully and complied with, bundles can become vital to improving patients' surgical quality of care.

Adhering to a national surgical care bundle reduces the risk of surgical site infections

Background

In 2008, a bundle of care to prevent Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) was introduced in the Netherlands. The bundle consisted of four elements: antibiotic prophylaxis according to local guidelines, no hair removal, normothermia and ‘hygiene discipline’ in the operating room (i.e. number of door movements). Dutch hospitals were advised to implement the bundle and to measure the outcome. This study’s goal was to assess how effective the bundle was in reducing SSI risk.

Methods

Hospitals assessed whether their staff complied with each of the bundle elements and voluntary reported compliance data to the national SSI surveillance network (PREZIES). From PREZIES data, we selected data from 2009 to 2014 relating to 13 types of surgical procedures. We excluded surgeries with missing (non)compliance data, and calculated for each remaining surgery with reported (non)compliance data the level of compliance with the bundle (that is, being compliant with 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the elements). Subsequently, we used this level of compliance to assess the effect of bundle compliance on the SSI risk, using multilevel logistic regression techniques.

Results

217 489 surgeries were included, of which 62 486 surgeries (29%) had complete bundle reporting. Within this group, the SSI risk was significantly lower for surgeries with complete bundle compliance compared to surgeries with lower compliance levels. Odds ratios ranged from 0.63 to 0.86 (risk reduction of 14% to 37%), while a 13% risk reduction was demonstrated for each point increase in compliance-level. Sensitivity analysis indicated that due to analysing reported bundles only, we probably underestimated the total effect of implementing the bundle.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that adhering to a surgical care bundle significantly reduced the risk of SSIs. Reporting of and compliance with the bundle compliance can, however, still be improved. Therefore an even greater effect might be achieved.

Outcomes are Local: Patient, Disease, and Procedure-Specific Risk Factors for Colorectal Surgical Site Infections from a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgical site infections (SSIs) contribute to postoperative morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization. Risk factors associated with colorectal SSI are well-documented. However, quality improvement efforts are informed by national data, which may not identify institution-specific risk factors.

METHOD

Retrospective cohort study of colorectal surgery patients uses institutional ACS-NSQIP data from 2006 through 2014. ACS-NSQIP data were enhanced with additional variables from medical records. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with SSI development.

RESULTS

Of 2376 patients, 213 (9.0%) developed at least one SSI (superficial 4.8%, deep 1.1%, organ space 3.5%). Age < 40, BMI > 30, ASA3+, steroid use, smoking, diabetes, pre-operative sepsis, higher wound class, elevated WBC or serum glutamic-oxalocetic transaminase, low hematocrit or albumin, Crohn's disease, and prolonged incision-to-closure time were associated with increased SSI rate (all P < 0.01). After adjustment, BMI > 30, steroids, diabetes, and wound contamination were associated with SSI. Patients with Crohn's had greater odds of SSI than other indications.

CONCLUSION

Institutional modeling of SSI suggests that many previously suggested risk factors established on a national level do not contribute to SSIs at our institution. Identification of institution-specific predictors of SSI, rather than relying upon conclusions derived from external data, is a critical endeavor in facilitating quality improvement and maximizing value of quality investments.

How Well Is Quality Improvement Described in the Perioperative Care Literature? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) approaches are widely used across health care, but how well they are reported in the academic literature is not clear. A systematic review was conducted to assess the completeness of reporting of QI interventions and techniques in the field of perioperative care.

METHODS

Searches were conducted using Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care database, and PubMed. Two independent reviewers used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) check list, which identifies 12 features of interventions that studies should describe (for example, How: the interventions were delivered [e. g., face to face, internet]), When and how much: duration, dose, intensity), to assign scores for each included article. Articles were also scored against a small number of additional criteria relevant to QI.

RESULTS

The search identified 16,103 abstracts from databases and 19 from other sources. Following review, full-text was obtained for 223 articles, 100 of which met the criteria for inclusion. Completeness of reporting of QI in the perioperative care literature was variable. Only one article was judged fully complete against the 11 TIDieR items used. The mean TIDieR score across the 100 included articles was 6.31 (of a maximum 11). More than a third (35%) of the articles scored 5 or lower. Particularly problematic was reporting of fidelity (absent in 74% of articles) and whether any modifications were made to the intervention (absent in 73% of articles).

CONCLUSIONS

The standard of reporting of quality interventions and QI techniques in surgery is often suboptimal, making it difficult to determine whether an intervention can be replicated and used to deliver a positive effect in another setting. This suggests a need to explore how reporting practices could be improved.

Single-site laparoscopic surgery for inflammatory bowel disease

Background and Objectives:

Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been firmly established; however, few reports addressing this technique in the inflammatory bowel disease population exist.

Methods:

We conducted a case-matched retrospective review of 20 patients who underwent single-site laparoscopic procedures for inflammatory bowel disease compared with 20 matched patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic procedures. Data regarding these patients were tabulated in the following categories: demographic characteristics, operative parameters, and perioperative outcomes.

Results:

A wide range of cases were completed: 9 ileocolic resections, 7 cases of proctocolectomy with end ileostomy or ileal pouch anal anastomosis, 2 cases of proctectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis, and 2 total abdominal colectomies with end ileostomy were all matched to equivalent multiport laparoscopic cases. No single-incision cases were converted to multiport laparoscopy, and 2 single-incision cases (10%) were converted to an open approach. For single-incision cases, the mean length of stay was 7.7 days, the mean time to oral intake was 3.3 days, and the mean period of intravenous analgesic use was 5.0 days. There were no statistically significant differences between single-site and multiport cases.

Conclusions:

Single-site laparoscopic surgery is technically feasible in inflammatory bowel disease. The length of stay and period of intravenous analgesic use (in days) appear to be higher than those in comparable series examining outcomes of single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery, and the outcomes are comparable with those of multiport laparoscopy. This may be because of the nature of inflammatory bowel disease, limiting the benefits of a single-site approach in this population.

Effectiveness of a care bundle to reduce surgical site infections in patients having open colorectal surgery

Introduction In 2010 a care bundle was introduced by the Department of Health (DH) to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs) in England. To date, use of the care bundle has not been evaluated despite incorporating interventions with resource implications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the DH SSI care bundle in open colorectal surgery. Methods A prospective cohort design was used at two teaching hospitals in England. The baseline group consisted of 127 consecutive patients having colorectal surgery during a 6-month period while the intervention group comprised 166 patients in the subsequent 6 months. SSI and care bundle compliance data were collected using dedicated surveillance staff. Results Just under a quarter (24%) of the patients in the baseline group developed a SSI compared with just over a quarter (28%) in the care bundle group (p>0.05). However, compliance rates with individual interventions, both before and after the implementation of the bundle, were similar. Interestingly, in only 19% of cases was there compliance with the total care bundle. The single intervention that showed an associated reduction in SSI was preoperative warming (p=0.032). Conclusions The DH care bundle did not reduce SSIs after open colorectal surgery. Despite this, it is not possible to state that the bundle is ineffective as compliance rates before and after bundle implementation were similar. All studies evaluating the effectiveness of care bundles must include data for compliance with interventions both before and after implementation of the care bundle; poor compliance may be one of the reasons for the lower than expected reduction of SSIs.

Surgical site infections

Surgical site infections are a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in postsurgical care. Risk for surgical site infection is multifactorial and includes a host of microbial, patient-related, and procedure-related factors. Prevention of surgical infection relies on optimization of patient factors and use of a variety of evidence-based pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic measures. At the forefront of these measures is antimicrobial prophylaxis, which has been shown to be effective at reducing risk of surgical site infection. As guidelines for prevention of surgical site infection become increasingly complex and nuanced, surgical infection outcomes are increasing tied to quality outcome and performances measures.

Risk factors for surgical site infection in Japanese patients with ulcerative colitis: a multicenter prospective study

PURPOSE

A prospective, multicenter, observational study was performed to investigate the risk factors of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

From 2009 to 2010, perioperative clinicopathological data were collected from patients who had undergone surgery for UC within the research period, for up to 6 consecutive months in 13 hospitals in Japan. The primary outcome was the development of SSI.

RESULTS

A total of 195 patients with UC who underwent colorectal surgery were enrolled. SSI was diagnosed in 38 (19.5 %) patients, in the form of incisional infection in 23 (11.8 %), organ/space infection in 16 (8.2 %), and both in 1 (0.5 %). There were no significant risk factors associated with an increased risk of development of incisional SSI. An American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of ≥ 3 was indicated as the only significant risk factor for organ/space SSI (P = 0.02) compared with other factors, such as a neutrophil count of >100 × 10(2)/mm(3), albumin level of <3.5 g/dl, perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion, fair or poor colonic cleanliness, and therapeutic use of antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Poor general physical status was the significant independent risk factor for organ/space SSI in patients with UC in Japan.

What is the quality of reporting of studies of interventions to increase compliance with antibiotic prophylaxis?

BACKGROUND

Despite studies reporting successful interventions to increase antibiotic prophylaxis compliance, surgical site infections remain a significant problem. The reasons for this lack of improvement are unknown. This review evaluates the internal and external validity of quality improvement studies of interventions to increase surgical antibiotic prophylaxis compliance.

STUDY DESIGN

Three investigators independently performed systematic literature searches and selected eligible studies that evaluated interventions to improve perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis timing, type, and/or discontinuation. Studies published before the Surgical Infection Prevention project inception in 2002 were excluded. Each study was assessed based on modified criteria for evaluating quality improvement studies (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) and for facilitating implementation of evidence into practice (Reach-Efficacy-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance).

RESULTS

Forty-six articles met inclusion criteria; 93% reported improvement in antibiotic prophylaxis compliance. Surgical site infections were evaluated in 50% of studies and 65% reported an improvement. Less than 5% of studies used randomization, allocation concealment, or blinding. Nine percent of studies described efforts to minimize bias in the design results and analysis and 13% described a sample size calculation. Approximately one-third of studies described participant adoption of the intervention (26%), factors affecting generalizability (33%), or implementation barriers (37%). Most studies (80%) used multiple interventions; no single intervention was associated with change in compliance. Studies with the lowest baseline compliance showed the greatest improvement, regardless of the intervention(s).

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology and reporting of quality improvement studies on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is suboptimal, and factors that would improve generalizability of successful intervention implementation are infrequently reported. Clinicians should use caution in applying the results of these studies to their general practice.

Surgical care improvement project (SCIP): has its mission succeeded?

The purpose of this study was to determine if adherence to the surgical care improvement project (SCIP) measures could further reduce rate of surgical site infection (SSI) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients. We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent primary or revision TJA at our institution between July 2000 and June 2009. After implementation of SCIP measures, rate of superficial SSI increased (0.42% versus 0.60%, P=0.05) while rate of deep SSI decreased from 0.92% to 0.82% (P=0.46). The rate of DVT was 0.92% before and 0.83% after implementation of SCIP (P=0.51); however, rate of PE increased from 0.87% to 1.30% (P=0.002). Our findings indicated that SCIP has not been successful in reducing complications in TJA patients.

Colorectal surgery surgical site infection reduction program: a national surgical quality improvement program--driven multidisciplinary single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) are a major cause of morbidity in surgical patients and they increase health care costs considerably. Colorectal surgery is consistently associated with high SSI rates. No single intervention has demonstrated efficacy in reducing colorectal SSIs. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) is a nationally validated system that uses clinically abstracted data on surgical patients and their outcomes to assist participating institutions drive quality improvement.

STUDY DESIGN

A multidisciplinary team was assembled to develop a colorectal SSI-reduction bundle at an academic tertiary care medical center. The ACS NSQIP data were used to identify patterns of SSIs during a 2-year period. Multiple interventions across the entire surgical episode of care were developed and implemented in January 2011. Monthly ACS NSQIP data were used to track progress.

RESULTS

Our ACS NSQIP overall colorectal SSI rate for 2009 and 2010 was 9.8%. One year after implementation of the SSI reduction bundle, we demonstrated a significant decline (p < 0.05) in both overall and superficial SSIs, to 4.0% and 1.5%, respectively. Organ space infections declined to 2.6%, which was not a significant change (p = 0.10). During the entire analysis period (2009 to 2011), there was no change in our colorectal-specific Surgical Care Improvement Program performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Using our ACS NSQIP colorectal SSI outcomes, a multidisciplinary team designed a colorectal SSI reduction bundle that resulted in a substantial and sustained reduction in SSIs. Our study is not able to identify which specific elements contributed to the reduction.

Surgical prophylaxis and other complication avoidance care bundles

Individual health care quality measures that have been shown to improve outcome can be combined together into what are called care bundles, with the expectation that this set of practices produces further improvements in outcome. Prevention of surgical site infection is the focus of several quality measures put forward by the Surgical Care Improvement Project; these can collectively be considered a bundle as well. Whether these process measures, which include several components related to the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis, are effective in decreasing rates of surgical site infection has come under considerable debate recently.

Impact of obesity on surgical site infection in colon and rectal surgery

Obesity affects over 30% of the United States population. Over the past 10 years, there has been increased recognition of the prevalence of obesity and its contribution to worse outcomes among medical and surgical patients. In particular, obesity has been validated as a risk factor for surgical site infection (SSI) among patients undergoing major abdominal surgery with some reports demonstrating an increased risk of SSI as high as sixty percent (60%) among obese patients. For patients undergoing elective colon and rectal surgery, a higher incidence of SSI (up to 45%) has been reported in comparison to outcomes of other surgical procedures. Obesity, as well as numerous other variables, have been implicated as a potential source for this increased incidence. Although the pathophysiology of obesity-related SSI has been suggested (decreased wound oxygen tension, impaired tissue antibiotic penetration, altered immune function, etc.), the true effect of obesity has not been clearly described. The purpose of this review is to examine the growing epidemic of obesity and its specific impact on SSI for both general and colorectal surgical patients. The proposed mechanisms for why obesity increases the risk of SSI will be briefly discussed, as well.