BMJ  2004;329:720 (25 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.38232.646227.DE (published 14 September 2004)

Information in practice

Surgical wound infection as a performance indicator: agreement of common definitions of wound infection in 4773 patients

¹ Department of Clinical Microbiology, University College London Hospitals, London WC1E 6DB, ² Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, ³ Department of Medical Physics, University College London Hospitals, ⁴ Department of Surgery, Medical School, Aberdeen, ⁵ Department of Public Health, Medical School, Aberdeen, ⁶ Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Unit, HPA Central Public Health Laboratory, London, ⁷ Health VFM Audit, National Audit Office, London

Objective To assess the level of agreement between common definitions of wound infection that might be used as performance indicators.

Design Prospective observational study.

Setting London teaching hospital group receiving emergency cases as well as tertiary referrals.

Participants 4773 surgical patients staying in hospital at least two nights.

Main outcome measures Numbers of wound infections based on purulent discharge alone, on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) definition of wound infection, on the nosocomial infection national surveillance scheme (NINSS) version of the CDC definition, and on the ASEPSIS scoring method.

Results 5804 surgical wounds were assessed during 5028 separate hospital admissions. The mean percentage of wounds classified as infected differed substantially with different definitions: 19.2% with the CDC definition (95% confidence interval 18.1% to 20.4%), 14.6% (13.6% to 15.6%) with the NINSS version, 12.3% (11.4% to 13.2%) with pus alone, and 6.8% (6.1% to 7.5%) with an ASEPSIS score > 20. The agreement between definitions with respect to individual wounds was poor. Wounds with pus were automatically defined as infected with the CDC, NINSS, and pus alone definitions, but only 39% (283/714) of these had ASEPSIS scores > 20.

Conclusions Small changes made to the CDC definition or even in its interpretation, as with the NINSS version, caused major variation in estimated percentage of wound infection. Substantial numbers of wounds were differently classified across the grades of infection. A single definition used consistently can show changes in percentage wound infection over time at a single centre, but differences in interpretation prevent comparison between different centres.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Mortality after Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in two hospitals in Oxfordshire, 1997-2003: cohort study

David H Wyllie, Derrick W Crook, and Tim E A Peto
BMJ 2006 333: 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Wound infections are not classified consistently
BMJ 2004 329: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• McCulloch, P. (2009). Developing appropriate methodology for the study of surgical techniques. JRSM 102: 51-55 [Full text]  
• Curran, E., Wilson, J. (2008). Using data effectively to prevent and control infection. British Journal of Infection Control 9: 26-33 [Abstract]  
• Wyllie, D. H, Crook, D. W, Peto, T. E A (2006). Mortality after Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in two hospitals in Oxfordshire, 1997-2003: cohort study. BMJ 333: 281- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Phillips, J. E., Crane, T. P., Noy, M., Elliott, T. S. J., Grimer, R. J. (2006). The incidence of deep prosthetic infections in a specialist orthopaedic hospital: A 15-YEAR PROSPECTIVE SURVEY. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88-B: 943-948 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Surgical wound infection as a performance indicator: lack of methodological detail prevents interpretation

Emily S Petherick, et al.
bmj.com, 15 Oct 2004 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more>>