INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF INFECTION SURVEILLANCE - THE NETHERLANDS VERSUS BELGIUM

Citation
R. Mertens et al., INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF INFECTION SURVEILLANCE - THE NETHERLANDS VERSUS BELGIUM, Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 15(9), 1994, pp. 574-580
Citations number
12
Categorie Soggetti
Infectious Diseases
ISSN journal
0899823X
Volume
15
Issue
9
Year of publication
1994
Pages
574 - 580
Database
ISI
SICI code
0899-823X(1994)15:9<574:ICOROI>2.0.ZU;2-B
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential benefit of comparing results from two national surveillance networks. DESIGN: Two prospective multicente r cohort studies of surgical wound infections (SWI). SETTING: Thirty-f ive and 62 acute-care hospitals in The Netherlands (NL) and Belgium (B ), respectively, from October 1, 1991, to June 30, 1992. RESULTS: The participation was equivalent in the two countries: 27% (NL) and 28% (B ) of all acute-care hospitals. Marked differences emerged between the Dutch and Belgian crude infection rates and the specific rates by woun d class and other risk factors. Because the case-mix in the countries is quite different, comparisons can be made only by specific surgical category. The results for inguinal hernia repair and for appendectomy are compared as an example. In herniorrhaphies, the difference in infe ction rate (0.4% [NL] versus 1.2% [B]) is not explained by differences in the distribution of risk factors. The shorter hospital stay in The Netherlands (4 days [NL] versus 6 days [B]), the more effective postd ischarge surveillance in Belgium, and the fact that more than two thir ds of the detected infections occurred after the first postoperative w eek probably can account for most of the difference. There was a strik ing difference in prophylaxis use (3.7% [NL] versus 41.9% [B]). In app endectomies, the Dutch patient population shows on average a higher ri sk profile, and surgery is urgent much more often in The Netherlands ( 78.3%) than in Belgium (49.2%). The infection rate is higher in The Ne therlands, especially among the patients without prophylaxis, which ag ain is employed less frequently there. CONCLUSION: We conclude that in ternational comparisons yield interesting insights regarding quality o f care, reaching beyond the field of nosocomial infection prevention. This is an argument in favor of more harmonization between surveillanc e networks (Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:574-580).