Comparison of two surveillance methods for detecting nosocomial infections in surgical patients.

Abstract

Nosocomial infections play a role in quality and cost control in health care. Surveillance of these infections is the only way to gain more insight into their frequency and causes. Since the results of surveillance may lead to changes in both patient and hospital management, which are sometimes major, it is necessary that all healthcare workers involved agree on the criteria used for the diagnosis and surveillance of these complications. In order to compare the efficacy of two surveillance methods, nosocomial infections in surgical patients were registered by both the Department of Surgery (complication surveillance [CS]) and the Department of Infection Control (nosocomial infection surveillance [NIS]) at the University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands, over a 2-month period. The CS team used the national criteria of the Association of Surgeons of the Netherlands and the NIS team used the international criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA, to define cases of nosocomial infection. A total of 515 patients were included in both arms of the study. The CS team diagnosed 69 infections in 49 patients, and the NIS team diagnosed 64 infections in 45 patients. Of 104 total infections, 39 were diagnosed by the CS team exclusively, 35 by the NIS team exclusively and only 30 by both. The main reasons for the inconsistent results were as follows: (i) the lack of follow-up after discharge in the NIS arm, (ii) the use of clinical criteria for the definition of a nosocomial infection in the CS arm, and (iii) the use of positive cultures as part of the criteria in the NIS arm. From the perspective of infection control, the CS system cannot be recommended for the surveillance of nosocomial infections.