891. Is Post-discharge Surveillance of Surgical Patients Really Worth It? Results Observed in Three Years of a Multicenter Study

Abstract

BackgroundSurgical site infections (SSIs) can account for 25% of all nosocomial infections and contribute significantly to the economic burden resulting from infectious complications. To control this problem, an active surveillance program with the feedback of SSI rates to surgeons can reduce subsequent rates by up to 40%, since 19% to 65% of these infections are diagnosed after patient discharge. However, there is no standard method for conducting surveillance outside the hospital and the best methodology is still unknown. For many hospitals, SSI surveillance has three main objectives: to feedback surgeons with their SSI rates; to evaluate SSI rates over time, identifying outbreaks; and to compare data among different institutions. This study aims to answer the crucial question: is surveillance after patient discharge worthwhile?MethodsProspective surveillance according to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) protocol of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at Hospital Lifecenter, Hospital Madre Teresa and Hospital Universitário Ciências Médicas, tertiary care centers, which serve the metropolitan area of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The data were collected between Jan/2017 and Dec/2019.ResultsIn almost three years of study, the infection rate data were calculated with and without surveillance. The monthly analysis by clinic showed that the inclusion of post-discharge patients in the computed rates increases its value, but not significantly. Of 22.009 patients analyzed, in Lifecenter Hospital, 229(1%) had SSI. This percentage refers to the infection rate with the post-discharge survey, while the rate of surgical infection without vigilance corresponds to 202(0,9%) (Table 1). The surveillance for Madre Teresa, those numbers were: 29.770, 382(1,3%) and 351(1,2%), respectively (Table 2). In Hospital Universitário Ciências Médicas: 20.286, 447 (2,2%) and 215(1,1%) (Table 3).Table 1 - Surgical site infection: data with and without post-discharge surveillance. Hospital Lifecenter (Jan/ 2017 to Jul/2019): month-by-month analysis. Table 2 - Surgical site infection: data with and without post-discharge surveillance. Hospital Madre Teresa (Jan/ 2017 to Dec/2019): month-by-month analysis. Table 3 - Surgical site infection: data with and without post-discharge surveillance. Hospital Universitário Ciências Médicas (Jan/ 2017 to Dec/2019): month-by-month analysis. ConclusionSSI post-discharge surveillance is indicated only for specific procedures. However, once the endemic curve with the infection rate did not change with the inclusion of post-discharge SSI, the study strongly suggests that surveillance after the discharge of the surgical patient is not necessary.Graph 1 - Surgical site infection: rates with and without post-discharge surveillance. Hospital Lifecenter (Jan/2017 to Jul/2019): endemic curve. Graph 2 - Surgical site infection: rates with and without post-discharge surveillance. Hospital Madre Teresa (Jan/2017 to Jul/2019): endemic curve. Graph 3 - Surgical site infection: rate with and without post-discharge surveillance. Hospital Universitário Ciências Médicas (Jan/2017 to Jul/2019): endemic curve. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures