Patients' Experience and Satisfaction Regarding the Pre-Operative Shower: The PRODOUCH Multicenter Descriptive Survey.

Background: Patients' experience of the pre-operative shower remains poorly assessed in the literature although it is an essential step in the prevention of surgical site infection. For obese patients, a pre-operative shower could be challenging. The goal was to assess patient satisfaction and experience with the process of pre-operative shower, and the effect of obesity status. Patients and Methods: This study was a multicenter prospective survey of consecutive surgical patients from nine hospitals. Data on the pre-operative shower were collected via telephone interview two to four weeks after surgery, and included the place (hospital, home), time, information received, difficulties experienced, the presence or absence of a visual assessment of skin cleanliness by a healthcare professional after the pre-operative shower, and overall patient satisfaction with the pre-operative shower technique. Data on the surgical procedure and patients' characteristics were collected from patients' records, and included age, gender, and body mass index. Factors associated with patient satisfaction were assessed. Results: Among 430 patients, 91.6% declared having received information on the pre-operative shower and 94.8% were very or rather satisfied with the pre-operative shower. Two factors were independently associated with satisfaction: showering at home and having received information on the pre-operative shower, but not obesity status. Only 17% of patients reported a visual assessment of skin cleanliness by a healthcare professional after the pre-operative shower. Discussion: Overall, regardless of obesity status, patients were satisfied with the pre-operative shower and reported no difficulties. However, this survey highlights the fact that skin cleanliness was seldom assessed by healthcare professionals, which may represent an unidentified weakness in skin preparation before surgery.

Surgical Site Infection in Endometriosis Surgery Is a Rare Complication: Results of a Single Center's Prospective Surveillance of Eight Hundred Ninety-Six Procedures.

Background: There are no studies reporting the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) after surgery for endometriosis, although this information is valuable when discussing the most appropriate treatment strategy with the patient. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study in a university hospital and regional reference center for endometriosis. We sought to measure the rate of SSI after endometriosis surgery using prospective SSI post-discharge surveillance data and the hospital information system via an ad hoc algorithm using both diagnosis and procedure code classifications. Results: Among 896 consecutive endometriosis surgical procedures, we identified 365 procedures with involvement of the gastrointestinal tract, defined as the deep invasive procedure (DIP) group, 107 procedures with involvement of an ovary, and 424 other procedures. Twelve SSI (all organ/space infections) were observed, all in the DIP group, corresponding to an overall SSI incidence of 1.3% 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-2.3, and an SSI incidence in the DIP group of 2.8%, 95% CI 1.5-4.9. The median delay between the procedure and the SSI was 6.5 days (range, 3-23). At least one micro-organism was found in 10 patients (four Escherichia coli, four Enterobacter cloacae, three Enteroccus faecalis, two Bacteroides fragilis, one Pseudomonas aeruginosa, one Candida albicans). Conclusion: A low overall rate of SSI after surgery for endometriosis was observed. Nevertheless, procedures with involvement of the intestinal tract were at risk of SSI.

Surveillance of unplanned return to the operating theatre in neurosurgery combined with a mortality--morbidity conference: results of a pilot survey.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned return to the operating theatre (UROT) is a useful trigger tool that could be used to identify surgical adverse events (SAEs). The present study describes the feasibility of SAE surveillance in neurosurgical patients, based on UROT identification, completed with SAE analysis at a morbidity-mortality conference (MMC) meeting. METHOD: For consecutive patients who underwent a neurosurgical procedure between 1 November 2008 and 30 April 2009, return to the operating theatre (ROT) was identified based on the hospital information system associated to prospective payment (HISPP). ROT was classified as planned or unplanned and UROT was further classified as related to the natural history of the disease or related to an adverse event (AE-UROT). MMC meetings were organised to discuss results of UROT surveillance and to analyse AE-UROT. RESULTS: 1006 neurosurgical procedures were included in the surveillance. HISSP identified 152 ROTs, with 73 UROTs related to an SAE (7.3% (5.7% to 9.0%)): infectious SAE (n=24, 2.4% (1.5% to 3.5%)), haemorrhagic SAE (n=23, 2.3% (1.5% to 3.4%)), other cause SAE (n=26, 2.8% (1.9% to 4.0%)), and infectious and other cause SAE (n=2, 0.2% (0.0% to 0.7%)). Identification of AE-UROT through HISSP required a 4 h/month time frame. Eight UROTs related to SAE cases were discussed during MMC meetings, leading to the identification of non-conforming care processes and practical improvement actions. CONCLUSION: UROT related to SAE surveillance in neurosurgical patients was considered feasible. The association of surveillance and MMCs allowed staff to concentrate on the analysis of most frequent or most severe AEs and was a practical and useful tool to stimulate improvement. The impact on healthcare quality of SAE surveillance associated with MMC warrants further research.