The first step in using health records as a means to identify SSI was to perform a review of all SSIs identified by health records in the 3 priority areas monitored by the ICPs. All health records identified “SSI” were reviewed by a surgeon to determine which were and were not SSI, according to the Centers for Disease Control criteria [5]. The review identified that the International Classification of Disease (ICD−10) coding for SSI included, in addition to SSI, multiple types of infections such as sepsis and central line infections. The review also identified that the health record coders had no specific criteria and therefore were variable in how they coded “SSI.” The review identified that the ICPs missed some true infections that were identified by health record coders.
To address the ambiguity of ICD coding, extension codes to the ICD codes were added to code specifically for SSI. To address the lack of criteria for SSI, the health record coders were trained by ICPs to use Centers for Disease Control criteria for SSI [5]. While both of these steps improved the identification of SSI by health record coders, a subsequent chart audit identified false positive and false negative recording of SSI by both ICPs and health record coders. The task force accepted that no method was completely accurate and that health record coding for SSI was financially feasible and provided SSI rates for all surgical disciplines. The task force concluded that health record coding would serve the purpose of monitoring trends in SSIs.
Impact of Guideline Compliance
The final step in the quality improvement initiative of reducing SSI was to evaluate trends in use of prophylactic antibiotics and the relationship with SSI. Through the multiple iterative strategies described above, the administration of an antibiotic within an hour of the incision increased to over 80% of patients. To evaluate the impact of guideline compliance, approximately 9000 procedures were reviewed over a 21-month period [4]. In the approximately 4500 patients who had a guideline-based indication to receive antibiotics, the 80% who received correct administration of an antibiotic within 1 hour of the incision had a reduction in the rate of SSI by one third compared with the 20% who didn’t receive antibiotics. Of the approximately 4500 patients who did not have an indication for antibiotics, 80% did not receive antibiotics (20% did receive despite no indication) and had a (statistically insignificant) lower rate of SSI compared to the 20% who received antibiotics inappropriately. In summary, only 50% of children having surgery had an indication for antibiotics, and not receiving antibiotics saved money, reduced antibiotic exposure, and did not increase the rate of SSI. In the 50% of patients who received antibiotics according to the guidelines the rate of SSI was reduced by 30% [6].
Discussion
Duration of Project
The total duration of the Sickkids effort to measure and reduce the rate of SSI and thereby improve the quality of surgical care took almost 8 years. The duration, which ideally should have been about one quarter of that time, was due to multiple issues. First, there were many simultaneous competing demands to improve quality in other IOM domains such as safety and efficiency. Second, no one on the task force had protected time and thus meetings could be no more than monthly because people could not complete tasks in a shorter time frame. Third, many of the steps relied on wider physician involvement such as reviewing the revised guidelines. The physicians were slow to respond and only after all 9 surgical disciplines had signed off on the guidelines could implementation proceed. Finally, many of the important issues came up only after implementation of a specific step. For example, the recognition of the need for an individual audit and feedback mechanism created the need of mapping the procedures to guidelines to SIS procedures, a process that took more than a year to complete. Also the responses to the emails created the need for revisions to the guideline with subsequent delays for re-approval with hospital and IT support for eformulary changes.