A comprehensive qualitative investigation of the factors that affect surgical site infection prevention in cardiac surgery in England using observations and interviews.

BACKGROUND: Interview and questionnaire studies have identified barriers and challenges to preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) by focusing on compliance with recommendations and care bundles using interviews, questionnaires and expert panels. This study proposes a more comprehensive investigation by using observations of clinical practice plus interviews which will enable a wider focus. AIM: To comprehensively identify the factors which affect SSI prevention using cardiac surgery as an exemplar. METHODS: The study consisted of 130 h of observed clinical practice followed by individual semi-structured interviews with 16 surgeons, anaesthetists, theatre staff, and nurses at four cardiac centres in England. Data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: The factors were complex and existed at the level of the intervention, the individual, the team, the organization, and even the wider society. Factors included: the attributes of the intervention; the relationship between evidence, personal beliefs, and perceived risk; power and hierarchy; leadership and culture; resources; infrastructure; supplies; organization and planning; patient engagement and power; hospital administration; workforce shortages; COVID-19 pandemic; 'Brexit'; and the war in Ukraine. CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies to provide a comprehensive overview of the factors affecting SSI prevention. The factors are complex and need to be fully understood when trying to reduce SSIs. A strong evidence base was insufficient to ensure implementation of an intervention.

Barriers and facilitators for surgical site infection surveillance for adult cardiac surgery in a high-income setting: an in-depth exploration.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance aims to facilitate a reduction in SSIs through identifying infection rates, benchmarking, triggering clinical review and instituting infection control measures. Participation in surveillance is, however, variable suggesting opportunities to improve wider adoption. AIM: To gain an in-depth understanding of the barriers and facilitators for SSI surveillance in a high-income European setting. METHODS: Key informant interviews with 16 surveillance staff, infection prevention staff, nurses and surgeons from nine cardiac hospitals in England. Data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: SSI surveillance was reported to be resource intensive. Barriers to surveillance included challenges associated with data collection: data being located in numerous places, multiple SSI data reporting schemes, difficulty in finding denominator data, lack of interface between computerized systems, 'labour intensive' or 'antiquated' methods to collect data (e.g., using postal systems for patient questionnaires). Additional reported concerns included: relevance of definitions, perceived variability in data reporting, lack of surgeon engagement, unsupportive managers, low priority of SSIs among staff, and a 'blame culture' around high SSI rates. Facilitators were increased resources, better use of digital technologies (e.g., remote digital wound monitoring), integrating surveillance within routine clinical work, having champions, mandating surveillance, ensuring a closer relationship between surveillance and improved patient outcomes, increasing the focus on post-discharge surveillance, and integration with primary care data. CONCLUSION: Using novel interviews with 'front-line' staff, identified opportunities for improving participation in SSI surveillance. Translating these findings into action will increase surveillance activity and bring patient safety benefits to a larger pool of surgical patients.