Australian Council On Healthcare Standards Research Articles

Establishing a New National and International Benchmark – A Unique Application of the ACHS EQuIP Quality Improvement Framework to Australia’s National and International Deployable Health Emergency Capability

Background/Introduction:The NCCTRC is the custodian of the Australian Medical Assistance Team (AUSMAT) capability. AUSMAT achieved World Health Organization (WHO) verification as a Type 2 Emergency Medical Team (EMT) in 2016.The NCCTRC explored a quality framework to support quality improvement beyond WHO minimum standards. The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) accreditation standards were applied to a unique field capability setting.Objectives:Establish a quality improvement framework for AUSMAT deployable capability to ensure delivery of the highest standard of care to populations affected by disasters and health emergencies.Method/Description:ACHS surveyors conducted a scoping assessment in 2017. The ACHS EQuIP Framework provided flexibility to accommodate the complexity of a deployable health facility, the fixed and virtual workforce, and the application of disaster response/humanitarian principles.Self-assessment identified gaps, which were remedied by the development of multiple tools, and an on-going program of improvement in formal documentation of process.Results/Outcomes:NCCTRC achieved ACHS EQuIP accreditation in June 2019. NCCTRC was awarded the ACHS Global Quality Improvement Award in November 2019. Survey in May 2021 demonstrated continued achievement.Conclusion:The application of a national accreditation framework to an EMT is unique. The NCCTRC applied a quality improvement framework to provide a standard of care that meets national health facility accreditation criteria, setting a new standard of clinical quality in the field.

Developing clinical indicators for oncology: the inaugural cancer care indicator set for the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards.

The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) sponsored an expert-led, consensus-driven, four-stage process, based on a modified Delphi methodology, to determine a set of clinical indicators as quality measures of cancer service provision in Australia. This was done in response to requests from institutional health care providers seeking accreditation, which were additional and complementary to the existing radiation oncology set. The steering group members comprised multidisciplinary key opinion leaders and a consumer representative. Five additional participants constituted the stakeholder group, who deliberated on the final indicator set. An initial meeting of the steering group scoped the high level nature of the desired set. In stage 2, 65 candidate indicators were identified by a literature review and a search of international metrics. These were ranked by survey, based on ease of data accessibility and collectability and clinical relevance. The top 27 candidates were debated by the stakeholder group and culled to a final set of 16 indicators. A user manual was created with indicators mapped to clinical codes. The indicator set was ratified by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and is now available for use by health care organisations participating in the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. This inaugural cancer clinical indicator set covers high level assessment of various critical processes in cancer service provision in Australia. Regular reviews and updates will ensure usability. This is the inaugural indicator set for cancer care for use across Australia and internationally under the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. Multidisciplinary involvement through a modified Delphi process selected indicators representing both generic and specific aspects of care across the cancer journey pathway and will provide a functional tool to compare health care delivery across multiple settings. It is anticipated that this will drive continual improvement in cancer care provision.

Developing and testing a matrix to achieve ready-everyday nursing standards (RENS): an observational study protocol

IntroductionThe Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) set criteria for the delivery of healthcare services in Australia. While a voluntary process, continual accreditation with ACHS is an expectation of, and...

Beyond Accreditation: Issues in Healthcare Quality

ABSTRACT In the last few years, there is an increased interest among Indian Healthcare institutions to get accredited from bodies, such as national accreditation board for hospitals and healthcare providers (NABH), Joint Commission International (JCI), Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS), and college of american pathologists Laboratory accreditation programme (CAP), etc. Hospital administrators, clinicians, academicians, promoters of the hospitals, policy makers and even government feel that accreditation is a panacea for all the problems associated with healthcare quality. But with the incidence of fire in one of the NABH accredited hospital in a metropolitan city, questions began to be asked on the correlation between quality and accreditation. Most of the hospitals use accreditation as a promotional tool, rather than a tool for continuous quality improvement. Often the entire focus of quality in a hospital is confined to the process of accreditation and re-accreditation. Time has come to think on the entire process of accreditation of hospitals in India, though it has a history of less than a decade. This paper intends to discuss various issues of quality in hospitals, outside the realms of accreditation. Need for strengthening and re-engineering the accreditation is also discussed. Accreditation essentially identifies the capability of the hospital to deliver quality care. It does not assure that hospitals delivers quality care. This aspect of accreditation has been often forgotten by the various stakeholders in healthcare. In this paper, an attempt is made to discuss other issues of quality, such as spurious drugs, quality of biomaterials, such as stents and biomedical equipments, quality of human resources, etc. which are often neglected by health institutions in its obsession to accreditation. How to cite this article Ikbal F. Beyond Accreditation: Issues in Healthcare Quality. Int J Res Foundation Hosp Healthc Adm 2015;3(1):1-4.

Scoping medical tourism and international hospital accreditation growth

Uwe Reinhardt stated that medical tourism can do to the US healthcare system what the Japanese automotive industry did to American carmakers after Japanese products developed a value for money and reliability reputation. Unlike cars, however, healthcare can seldom be test-driven. Quality is difficult to assess after an intervention (posteriori), therefore, it is frequently evaluated via accreditation before an intervention (a priori). This article aims to scope the growth in international accreditation and its relationship to medical tourism markets. Using self-reported data from Accreditation Canada, Joint Commission International (JCI) and Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS), this article examines how quickly international accreditation is increasing, where it is occurring and what providers have been accredited. Since January 2000, over 350 international hospitals have been accredited; the JCI's total nearly tripling between 2007-2011. Joint Commission International staff have conducted most international accreditation (over 90 per cent). Analysing which countries and regions where the most international accreditation has occurred indicates where the most active medical tourism markets are. However, providers will not solely be providing care for medical tourists. Accreditation will not mean that mistakes will never happen, but that accredited providers are more willing to learn from them, to varying degrees. If a provider has been accredited by a large international accreditor then patients should gain some reassurance that the care they receive is likely to be a good standard. The author questions whether commercializing international accreditation will improve quality, arguing that research is necessary to assess the accreditation of these growing markets.

Clinical indicators in surgery: a critical review of the Australian experience

A set of clinical measures (indicators), developed by an Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) and Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) working party, was introduced into the accreditation programme in 1997. Although early qualitative and quantitative reporting by health-care organizations (HCOs) reflected their value in stimulating change, the number of HCOs reporting data on this set of clinical indicators (CIs) has declined, despite an increase in the number of HCOs reporting data on the CIs programme overall. Possible reasons for this decline were sought. A retrospective review of prospectively collected surgical CI data was performed, a national survey of stakeholders in the ACHS programme was conducted and a comparison was made with published international data. From a maximum of 247 HCOs reporting data in 2002, the number fell to 168 by 2011. While favourable trends were evident with some CIs, for example, a decline in the rate of negative histology in childhood appendicectomy and in the rate of in-hospital infection in total hip joint replacement, there was minimal change with many of the CIs, suggesting limited responsiveness as measures of care. In the national survey, stakeholder's response was positive overall, but there was a requirement for regular review of CIs. Although some colleges viewed the CIs as simplistic and not reliable, comparisons with similar measures available in the international literature were favourable. Possible reasons for the declining number of HCOs reporting surgical CI data are a lack of a recent revision of the CIs and a lack of engagement of clinicians from the RACS. Revision of the surgical CI set is required.

An empirical test of accreditation patient journey surveys: randomized trial

To evaluate the effectiveness of utilizing the patient journey survey (PJS) method in healthcare accreditation processes. Randomized trial of the PJS method in parallel with the current accreditation survey (CAS) method of the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS). Acute healthcare organizations in Australia. Seventeen organizations, 28 organizational staff, nine surveyors and 38 patients. The results of each surveying method were compared. Participants provided feedback, via 18 interviews and 40 questionnaire surveys, about the benefits and disadvantages of a PJS compared to a CAS. The PJS method is not as comprehensive as the CAS method for accreditation assessment. In matched assessments the majority of items were rated lower by the PJS method than by the CAS. PJSs were shown to be appropriate for assessing mandatory clinical criteria, but were less effective for assessing corporate and support criteria. The two methods diverged in their final assessments of which organizations met the accreditation threshold. Participants endorsed the use of PJSs within accreditation processes. The PJS methodology complements but is not a substitute for existing accreditation methods. There is significant stakeholder support for the inclusion of the PJS method within the current accreditation programme.

An empirical test of short notice surveys in two accreditation programmes

To evaluate short notice surveys in accreditation programmes. Two trials using short notice surveys were conducted independently: a study of 20 healthcare organizations with the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) and a study of 7 general practices with the Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited (AGPAL). Participating organizations volunteered. ACHS and AGPAL selected 17 and 13 surveyors, respectively, and provided training for them on short notice surveys. Each agency's short notice surveys were an abbreviated version of their current advanced notification surveys. Short notice surveys assessed accreditation programme criteria or indicators that corresponded to the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care's priority issues. Fifteen (out of 45) ACHS criteria and 48 (out of 174) AGPAL indicators that aligned to the Commission's criteria were evaluated. Participating organizations were given 2 days notice prior to the short notice surveys. Ratings from the short notice surveys were compared with those from the most recent advanced notification surveys, and statistical tests were performed to detect differences and potential confounding factors. Surveyors and organizational staff completed a post-survey feedback questionnaire which was analysed thematically and by inferential statistics. The short notice survey approach overall produced ratings congruent with the advanced notification survey for both accreditation programmes. However, for both programmes short notice surveys assessed that more organizations would not reach the accreditation threshold as compared with the previous survey. Organizations in both programmes were judged to have achieved less successful performance against clinical standards by the short notice survey than the advanced notification survey. There was support from surveyors and organizational staff for short notice survey to be adopted. However, there were mixed views about the impact of short notice surveys and whether they validated trial participants' continuous improvement efforts. The study demonstrated that short notice surveys are more critical in their assessment of clinical than administrative or corporate items. Short notice surveys, while broadly comparable with existing advanced notification survey practice, produced different accreditation outcomes for a significant proportion of the study organizations. The overall value and worth of short notice surveys remains to be proved.

Improving use of medicines with clinician‐led use of validated clinical indicators

se of clinical indicators with collection and monitoring of meaningful data has been recognised as important for driving improvements in the safety and quality of health care. 1 Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) is one aspect of health care in which continual improvement is vitally important. QUM forms part of Australia’s National Medicines Policy and involves judicious selection of treatment options (including choice between drug or non-drug treatment and no treatment), appropriate choice of medicines when they are required, and safe and efficacious use of medicines. 2 Problems with medicines use are costly and occur commonly at all stages of the medicines management pathway 3 and in all health care settings. Elderly, paediatric and chronically ill patients are at particular risk of experiencing adverse drug events. In Australia, some 190 000 admissions per year are associated with medicinerelated problems, costing the health care system about $660 million, and adverse events involving medicines are consistently among the most frequently reported incidents in voluntary incident-reporting systems. 4 Thus, to stimulate quality improvement in this area of health care, it is critical to systematically collect meaningful data about medicines use. Organisations such as the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS), the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Council of Australian Governments and the National Prescribing Service are developing clinical indicators for measuring and improving the safety and quality of health care. However, QUM issues are addressed inconsistently in indicators relating to hospitalised patients — probably because medicines management is complex and multidisciplinary 3 and not wholly “owned” by any one profession, specialty or discipline.

Postoperative infection rates in foot and ankle surgery: a clinical audit of Australian podiatric surgeons, January to December 2007

Surgical site infections are one of the most common post-operative complications encountered by foot and ankle surgeons. The incidence reported in the literature varies between 0.5 and 6.5%. The results of a 12-month Australia-wide clinical audit analysing the rates of postoperative infections in association with podiatric surgery are presented. De-identified patient data was collected from nine podiatric surgeons Australia-wide. Infections were identified according to Australian Council on Health Care Standards (ACHS) definitions and data was entered no earlier than thirty days post procedure. A total of 1339 patient admissions and 2387 surgical procedures were reported using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and Medicare Benefit Schedule (MBS) coding systems. The overall infection rate was 3.1% and the rate of infection resulting in hospital re-admission was 0.25%. The benchmark results presented in this paper suggest that infection rates associated with podiatric surgery are well within accepted industry standards as stated in recent literature.

More than hand hygiene is needed to affect methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical indicator rates: Clean hands save lives, Part IV

To examine whether improved hand hygiene compliance in health care workers after a statewide hand hygiene campaign in New South Wales hospitals was associated with a fall in rates of infection with multiresistant organisms. Data on rates of new methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections (expressed as four clinical indicators) are reported by some Australian hospitals to the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) for accreditation purposes and are mandatorily reported by all NSW hospitals to the NSW Department of Health. Infections are classified according to whether they are acquired in the intensive care unit (ICU) or other wards and whether they are from sterile sites (blood cultures) or non-sterile sites. The clinical indicators reflect four different site categories (ICU sterile site, ICU non-sterile site, non-ICU sterile site and non-ICU non-sterile site) and are expressed as the number of new health care-associated infections per 10,000 acute care bed-days. Clinical indicator rates were examined for any decline between the pre-campaign period (July-December 2005) and post-campaign period (January-July 2007), and were compared with trends over a similar period in states without a hand hygiene campaign. Pre-campaign and post-campaign rates for four MRSA clinical indicators. Between the pre- and post-campaign periods, there was a 25% fall in MRSA non-ICU sterile site infections, from 0.60/10,000 bed-days to 0.45/10,000 bed-days (P = 0.027), and a 16% fall in ICU non-sterile site infections, from 36.36/10,000 bed-days to 30.43/10,000 bed-days (P = 0.037). The pre- and post-campaign rates of MRSA infection from ICU sterile sites (5.28/10,000 bed-days v 4.80/10,000 bed-days; P = 0.664) and non-ICU non-sterile sites (5.92/10,000 bed-days v 5.66/10,000 bed-days; P = 0.207) remained stable. Australia-wide MRSA data reported to the ACHS showed a 45% decline in infections from ICU non-sterile sites, from 25.89/10,000 bed-days to 14.30/10,000 bed-days (P < 0.001), and a 46% decline in infections from non-ICU non-sterile sites, from 3.70/10,000 bed-days to 1.99/10,000 bed-days (P < 0.001) over the period 2005-2006. Two out of four clinical indicators of MRSA infection remained unchanged despite significant improvements in hand hygiene compliance in NSW hospitals. The reduction in MRSA infections from ICU non-sterile sites in NSW hospitals was mirrored in ACHS data for other Australian states and cannot be assumed to be the result of improved hand hygiene compliance. Concurrent clinical and infection control practices possibly influence MRSA infection rates and may modify the effects of hand hygiene compliance. More sensitive measurements of hand hygiene compliance are needed.

Rehabilitation and Disability Services' Quality Projects: A Comparison against the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards' Clinical Criteria.

The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) Evaluation, Quality and Improvement (EQuIP 4)1 standards provide a useful clinical and corporate framework for the analysis of quality projects by both health and disability services. Two ACHS EQuIP 4 clinical standards were used to compare quality projects conducted by community-based and on-site rehabilitation and disability services, as generated by a commercial database. Reliable information is a major asset for healthcare organisations, and the use of the ACHS clinical standards to interpret quality project data can overcome a lack of conceptual framework to interpret data. Key differences in the types of quality projects entered in the database by the rehabilitation and disability services may be attributed to the rehabilitation services' relationship with the client (patient), which is time-limited according to the clients' rehabilitation progress, while in comparison, disability services provide life-long support.

Health care accreditation surveyor styles typology

This paper aims to investigate how health care accreditation surveyors enact their role with a view to identifying a surveyor styles typology. This study was conducted in two phases. First, observational research was used to examine the conduct of a small survey team during the 2005 accreditation survey of a rural health service in Australia. The survey team was from the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS), the major health care accreditation agency in Australia. Second, the emerging typology was reviewed by an expert panel of ACHS surveyors. A typology comprising three unique surveyor styles is identified--interrogator; explorer; and discusser. Additionally, a further style, the questioner, is hypothesised. RESEARCH LIMITATION/IMPLICATIONS: The typology has application for development by accreditation agencies to be used with surveyors as a self-reflection tool to improve learning and development. The knowledge gained about surveyors' styles can be used to match more effectively survey teams to organisations seeking accreditation. Further research is necessary to confirm these styles and examine whether other styles are apparent. This study is an important step in examining the conduct of surveyors and opening up health care accreditation surveyor inter-rater reliability for further investigation.

Surgeons' perspectives on surgical wound infection rate data in Queensland, Australia

The results of the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) project demonstrated that hospitals with active infection control programs had lower rates of nosocomial infection than those without such programs. A key component of these programs was the inclusion of a systematic method for monitoring nosocomial infection and reporting these infections to clinicians. To identify the perspectives of surgeons in Queensland, Australia, regarding infection rate data in terms of its accuracy and usefulness as well as their perceptions regarding acceptable infection rates for surgical procedures classified as "clean" or "contaminated." A postal survey was conducted, with a convenience sample of 510 surgeons. More than 40% (n = 88) of respondents believed that the acceptable infection rate associated with clean surgical procedures should be less than 1%, a rate much lower than the threshold of 1.4% to 4.1% set by the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS). Almost 30% (n = 55) of respondents reported that they would accept infection rates of 10% or higher for contaminated surgical procedures, which is higher than the ACHS threshold of 1.4% to 7.9%. Respondents identified failure to include postdischarge infections in the data and difficulties standardizing criteria for diagnosis of infection as the major impediments to the accuracy and usefulness of data provided. The results of this study have significant implications in relation to the preparation of surgical site infection reports, especially in relation to the inclusion of postdischarge surveillance data and information regarding pathogens, antibiotic sensitivities, and comorbidities of patients developing surgical site infection. Surgeons also identified the need to include information regarding the use of standardized definitions in the diagnosis of wound infection and parameters that allow comparison of infection rates to improve their perceptions regarding data accuracy and usefulness.

Does the presence of an emergency physician improve access based quality indicators in a rural emergency department?

To assess the effect that the presence of an emergency physician in the ED has on the access indicators of the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards. A retrospective study was carried out in a 265 bed regional referral hospital in Victoria. The performance of the ED over a 6 month period, during which time there was incomplete emergency physician coverage, was monitored using The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) access indicators as the benchmark. These indicators are waiting time by triage category, and access block. A total of 11 999 patient presentations were eligible for inclusion in the study. Emergency physicians were present for 76.5% of these presentations. All the indicators show a trend towards improvement when an emergency physician was present. However, the only indicator that shows a significant improvement is waiting time by triage category, and this is due mainly to an improvement within triage category 4. There is some evidence that the presence of an emergency physician improves performance within this group of access based indicators within a rural ED, however, the effect seen here is small. More studies are needed on this topic and also on the development of quality indicators for rural ED.

The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards: performance indicators

The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) has been involved in the development of performance measures for over 10 years. The initial aims of clinical indicator development were to: increase the involvement of doctors in evaluation and quality improvement activities; create and provide useful tools for flagging potential problems and/or areas for improvement in health care; facilitate the collection of national data on the processes and outcomes of patient care in Australia.

Early experience with clinical indicators in surgery.

In 1997 a set of 53 clinical indicators developed by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) and the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) Care Evaluation Programme (CEP), was introduced into the ACHS Evaluation and Quality Improvement Programme (EQuIP). The clinical indicators covered 20 different conditions or procedures for eight specialty groups and were designed to act as flags to possible problems in surgical care. The development process took several years and included a literature review, field testing, and revision of the indicators prior to approval by the College council. In their first year 155 health-care organizations (HCO) addressed the indicators and this rose to 210 in 1998. Data were received from all states and both public and private facilities. The collected data for 1997 and 1998 for some of the indicators revealed rates which were comparable with those reported in the international literature. For example, the rates of bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy were 0.7 and 0.53%, respectively; the mortality rates for coronary artery graft surgery were 2.5 and 2.1%, respectively; the mortality rates after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair were 2.5 and 3.7%, respectively; and the post-tonsillectomy reactionary haemorrhage rates were 0.9 and 1.3%, respectively. Results for some indicators differed appreciably from other reports, flagging the need for further investigation; for example, the negative histology rates for appendectomy in children were 18.6 and 21.2%, respectively, and the rates for completeness of excision of malignant skin tumours were 90.7 and 90%, respectively. The significance of these figures, however, depends upon validation of the data and their reliability and reproducibility. Because reliability can be finally determined only at the hospital level they are of limited value for broader comparison. The process of review established for the indicator set has led to refinement of some indicators through improvement of definitions, and to a considerable reduction in the number of indicators to 29 (covering 18 procedures), for the second version of the indicators (which was introduced for use from January 1999). The clinical indicator programme, as it has with other disciplines, hopefully will provide a stimulus to the modification and improvement of surgical practice. Clinician ownership should enhance the collection of reliable data and hence their usefulness.

Clinical indicators in accreditation: an effective stimulus to improve patient care.

The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) established the Care Evaluation Program (CEP) of clinical performance measures in its accreditation program to increase the clinical component of that program and to increase medical practitioner involvement in formal quality activities in their health care organizations. From the introduction of a set of generic indicators in 1993 the program expanded through all of the various medical disciplines and from January 2000 there will be 18 sets (well over 200 indicators) in the program. More than half of Australia's acute hospitals (covering the majority of patient separations) are monitoring the indicators and reporting clinical data twice yearly to the ACHS. In turn they receive a 6-monthly feedback of aggregate and peer comparative results. The ACHS policy had no specific requirement for a set number of indicators to be monitored and it was not mandatory to achieve any specific data threshold to be accredited. However, where an organization's results differed unfavorably from those of its peers some action was expected. Qualitative information is also sent to the CEP and this has enabled a determination of the effectiveness of the indicators. There is documented evidence of improved management and numerous examples of improved patient outcomes. The program remains unique in the scope of the medical disciplines covered and in the formal provider involvement with indicator development. Both the clinical component of accreditation and clinician involvement in quality activities have been increased in an educational process. However, not all of the indicators are of equal value and a reduction in the number of indicators to a 'core' group of the most reliable and responsive ones is in process.

The ACHS Care Evaluation Program: a decade of achievement. Australian Council on Healthcare Standards.

In 1989 the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) embarked on a programme to develop acute health care clinical indicators in conjunction with the Australian medical colleges. Through a carefully structured stepwise process this collaboration established a 'World first' in 1993 with the introduction of the first set of indicators into the ACHS Accreditation programme. The programme remains unique in the formal involvement of providers in the development process and in the scope of the clinical areas covered in acute health care. From the year 2000 there will be 18 sets (and over 200 indicators) from which health care organisations (HCOs) can choose to monitor the major services they provide. There remains no compulsion to address a specific number of indicators. The growth of the programme has been considerable with more than half of the nations' acute HCOs reporting their clinical indicator data (twice yearly) and it provides a reflection of the care given for the majority of patient separations in acute care. This reporting process allows HCOs to receive feedback on the aggregate results together with comparative peer group information for each indicator they address. In addition to numerous publications in peer reviewed journals an annual aggregate report, 'the Measurement of Care in Australian Hospitals' is published. It reports both qualitative and quantitative data on all indicator sets for the preceding year. Validity of the indicators is strengthened each year with a review process and reliability and reproducibility of the data can now be demonstrated. The clinical response to the indicators has been overwhelming and there is now documented evidence of numerous actions taken by HCOs to improve both the processes and the outcomes of patient care. The nation wide database can be expected to reflect trends in care over the next few years. The process of indicator refinement, however, will continue and it is likely that a reduction in the total number of indicators will occur with a core group of the more 'robust' indicators remaining. Further directions in indicator development are likely to be in the area of multidisciplinary care and in the assessment of longer-term outcomes. In addition to measures of the quality of care, hopefully, in time, health care providers will also take part in the establishment of measures of the appropriateness of that care.

Methodologies used in surveillance of surgical wound infections and bacteremia in Australian hospitals

Background: The prevalence of nosocomial infection in Australian hospitals is estimated to be between 5.5% and 6.3%. Since 1989, infection control professionals (ICPs) in hospitals accredited by the Australian Council on Health Care Standards (ACHS) have been encouraged to collect nosocomial infection data according to ACHS methodology. Method: In 1996, we surveyed members of the Australian Infection Control Association to examine the time spent on surveillance, the practice of surveillance of all hospital infections (hospital-wide surveillance), case-finding methods, case definitions, and reporting routinely used by ICPs in acute care hospitals. We also examined the ICPs’ education and experience in infection control (IC). Results: The survey was completed and returned by 65% (644 of 993) of Australian Infection Control Association members. Of the ICPs who completed the survey, 47.8% (308 of 644; 95% CI, 43.9%-51.7%) met the criteria for inclusion, because they coordinated an IC program in an acute care or surgical hospital and performed surveillance for either surgical wound infection, intravascular device-related bacteremia, or non–device-related bacteremia. Of the ICPs who reported their facility’s accreditation status, 93.5% participated in ACHS system. Most (97.6%) ICPs had completed hospital-based general registered nurse training. Only 1.9% (6 of 308) of ICPs reported completion of continuing education relating to hospital epidemiology. The number of years of IC experience ranged from zero to 35 years, with a median of 4 years. ICPs spent a substantial proportion of their total weekly IC time on surveillance irrespective of ACHS accreditation; 19.5 hours in ACHS hospitals and 15.6 hours in non-ACHS hospitals ( P = .33). More than three quarters (76.0%) of ICPs performed hospital-wide surveillance. The case-finding methods, definitions of infections, and reporting formats varied greatly. The definition most commonly applied by ICPs (6.8%; 95% CI, 4.1%-10.4%) to define surgical wound infection was infection within 30 days after the operative procedure, plus purulent drainage, plus isolation of organisms from a culture from the incision site, plus diagnosis by a medical officer. A 5-item definition of a patient being asymptomatic, plus afebrile on admission, plus infection occurring at least 48 hours after admission, plus the patient having a fever of >38°C, plus a recognized culture from one or more bottles was used by 15.7% (95% CI, 11.3%-21.0%) of ICPs to define a case of bacteremia. Conclusion: Surveillance is the core business of Australian ICPs and consumes a substantial proportion of their time. The importance of surveillance, the epidemiologic limitations of the current ACHS system, and the nonstandard methods we report indicate that improved methodology is required for case finding and reporting of nosocomial infections. Australian ICPs should complete training in the principles of surveillance and epidemiology. With this training, ICPs can work collaboratively with other health care professionals to develop epidemiologically sound, local, nosocomial surveillance systems and lobby for a voluntary, national, standardized, risk-adjusted system of targeted nosocomial surveillance. (AJIC Am J Infect Control 1999;27:474-81)