Patient Self-Assessment of Surgical Site Infection is Inaccurate.

Abstract

Availability of surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance rates challenges clinicians, healthcare administrators and leaders and the public. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate the consequences patient self-assessment strategies have on SSI reporting rates. We performed SSI surveillance among patients undergoing general surgery procedures, including telephone follow-up 30days after surgery. Additionally we undertook a separate validation study in which we compared patient self-assessments of SSI with surgeon assessment. Finally, we performed a meta-analysis of similar validation studies of patient self-assessment strategies. There were 22/266 in-hospital SSIs diagnosed (8.3%), and additional 16 cases were detected through the 30-day follow-up. In total, the SSI rate was 16.8% (95% CI 10.1-18.5). In the validation survey, we found patient telephone surveillance to have a sensitivity of 66% (95% CI 40-93%) and a specificity of 90% (95% CI 86-94%). The meta-analysis included five additional studies. The overall sensitivity was 83.3% (95% CI 79-88%), and the overall specificity was 97.4% (95% CI 97-98%). Simulation of the meta-analysis results divulged that when the true infection rate is 1%, reported rates would be 4%; a true rate of 50%, the reported rates would be 43%. Patient self-assessment strategies in order to fulfill 30-day SSI surveillance misestimate SSI rates and lead to an erroneous overall appreciation of inter-institutional variation. Self-assessment strategies overestimate SSIs rate of institutions with high-quality performance and underestimate rates of poor performance. We propose such strategies be abandoned. Alternative strategies of patient follow-up strategies should be evaluated in order to provide valid and reliable information regarding institutional performance in preventing patient harm.