LAUSR

BackgroundAvailability 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.MethodsWe performed SSI surveillance among patients undergoing general surgery procedures, including telephone follow-up 30 days 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.ResultsThere 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%.ConclusionPatient 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.