Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:51:09.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surveillance of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Surgical Procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Victor Vaisbrud ,
David Raveh ,
Yechiel Schlesinger  and
Amos M. Yinnon
Victor Vaisbrud
Affiliation:
Department of Orthopedics, Shaare Zedek Medical Center and Hadassah-Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
David Raveh
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Unit, Shaare Zedek Medical Center and Hadassah-Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Yechiel Schlesinger
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Unit, Shaare Zedek Medical Center and Hadassah-Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Amos M. Yinnon*
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Unit, Shaare Zedek Medical Center and Hadassah-Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
*
Infectious Diseases Unit, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, PO Box 3235, Jerusalem 91031, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the practice of antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical procedures in eight surgical departments in a 550-bed teaching hospital.

Methods:

A list of all major procedures performed in our hospital, with recommendations for prophylaxis based upon the literature, has been distributed since 1993 and is updated periodically. The practice of surgical prophylaxis between January 1 and March 31,1996, was examined by assessing four variables: (1) Did the particular procedure justify prophylaxis, and was it provided? (2) Was timing optimal, ie, within 1 hour prior to surgery? (3) Was the appropriate antimicrobial selected? (4) Was duration optimal, ie, ≤24 hours?

Results:

During the study period, 2,117 operations were performed, of which 1,631 (77%) were reviewed. Sixty-six percent were clean surgery, 28% clean-contaminated, and 6% contaminated; 72% of procedures were elective, 28% emergencies. Of 1,631 operations requiring prophylaxis, 1,142 (70%) received it, 489 (30%) did not. Of 1,631 patients, 1,392 (85%) received appropriate care: 929 (67%) appropriately received prophylaxis, and 463 (33%) appropriately did not receive prophylaxis. Of 955 patients who received prophylaxis, 26 (3%) did so inappropriately. Of 1,142 patients who should have received prophylaxis, 213 (19%) did not receive it. Female gender, clean surgery, elective operations, and infrequently performed procedures were all significant indicators of inappropriately withheld prophylaxis (P<.001). In addition, the rate of appropriately provided prophylaxis varied between departments from 71% to 97% (P<.001). Assessment of the 929 procedures for which prophylaxis was justified and given revealed that 100% of patients received it on time, the choice of antimicrobial was appropriate in 95% of cases, and duration was ≤24 hours in 91%.

Conclusions:

Audits of surgical prophylaxis are expected to detect different errors in different institutions. Conducting audits of surgical prophylaxis probably should be part of the routine activity of infection control teams. Feeding the information back to surgeons could improve adherence to recommended guidelines and might contribute to reduced wound infection rates.

Type
Orginal Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 20 , Issue 9 , September 1999 , pp. 610 - 613
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, Emori, TG. The national nosocomial infection rate. A new need for vital statistics. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Pittet, D, Ducel, G. Infectious risk factors related to operating rooms. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:456–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Green, MS, Rubinstein, E, Amit, P. Estimating the effects of nosocomial infections on the length of hospitalization. J Infect Dis 1982;145:667–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Haley, RW, Schaberg, DR, Von Allmen, SD, McGowan, JE. Estimating the extra charges and prolongation of hospitalization due to nosocomial infections: a comparison of methods. J Infect Dis 1980;141:248–257.Google Scholar
5. McGowan, JE Jr. Cost and benefit of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis: methods for economic analysis. Rev Infect Dis 1991;13(suppl 10):S879–S889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Kernodle, DS, Kaiser, AB. Postoperative infections and antimicrobial prophylaxis. In: Mandell, GL, Bennett, JE, Dolin, R, eds. Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 4th ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1995:2742–2756.Google Scholar
7. Polk, HC Jr, Wilson, MA, Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. In: Fry, DE, ed. Surgical Infections. Boston, MA Little, Brown & Co; 1995:127–133.Google Scholar
8. Dellinger, EP, Gross, PA, Barrett, TL, Krause, PJ, Martone, WJ, McGowan, JE Jr, et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Clin Infect Dis 1994;18:422–427.Google Scholar
9. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett Drugs Ther 1992;34:5–8.Google Scholar
10. Paluzzi, RG. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery. Med Clin North Am 1993;77:427–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Yinnon, AM, Schlesinger, Y. Recommendations for Usage of Antimicrobial in Common Clinical Conditions. Pocket Book (in Hebrew), 2nd ed. Jerusalem, Israel: Glaxo Wellcome; 1996.Google Scholar
12. Abramov, D, Jeroukhimov, I, Yinnon, AM, Abramov, Y, Avissar, E, Jerassy, Z, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in umbilical and incisional hernioplasties: a randomized prospective trial. Eur J Surg 1996;162:945–948.Google Scholar
13. Glantz, SA, Primer of Biostatistics. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc; 1992:67–144.Google Scholar
14. Wenzel, RR, Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. N Engl J Med 1992;326:337–339.Google Scholar
15. Shapiro, M. Perioperative prophylactic use of antibiotics in surgery: principles and practice. Infect Control 1982;3:38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Widdison, AL, Pope, NR, Brown, EM. Survey of guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. J Hosp Infect 1993;25:199–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Davey, PG, Parker, SE, Malek, MM. Pharmacoeconomics of antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 ;31(suppl B):107–118.Google Scholar
18. Schlesinger, Y, Paltiel, O, Yinnon, AM. Analysis and impact of infectious diseases consultation. J Hosp Infect 1998;40:39–46.Google Scholar
19. Finkelstein, R, Reinhertz, G, Embom, A Surveillance of the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. Isr J Med Sci 1996;32:1093–1097.Google Scholar
20. Iizan-Garcia, M, Garcia-Caballero, J, Asensio-Vegas, A Risk factors for surgical-wound infection in general surgery: a prospective study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:310–315.Google Scholar
21. Classen, DC, Evans, RS, Pestomik, SL, Horn, SD, Menlove, RL, Burke, JP, The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326:281–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Kurz, X, Mertens, R, Ronveaux, O. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery in Belgian hospitals: room for improvement. Eur J Surg 1996;162:15–21.Google Scholar
23. Ehrenkranz, NJ. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: mechanisms, misconceptions, and mischief. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:99–106.Google Scholar