Burden of surgical site infections in the Netherlands: cost analyses and disability-adjusted life years.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are associated with morbidity, mortality and costs. AIM: To identify the burden of (deep) SSIs in costs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) following colectomy, mastectomy and total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the Netherlands. METHODS: A retrospective cost-analysis was performed using 2011 data from the national SSI surveillance network PREZIES. Sixty-two patients with an SSI (exposed) were matched to 122 patients without an SSI (unexposed, same type of surgery). Patient records were studied until 1 year after SSI diagnosis. Unexposed patients were followed for the same duration. Costs were calculated from the hospital perspective (2016 price level), and cost differences were tested using linear regression analyses. Disease burden was estimated using the Burden of Communicable Disease in Europe Toolkit of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The SSI model was specified by type of surgery, with country- and surgery-specific parameters where possible. FINDINGS: Attributable costs per SSI were €21,569 (THA), €14,084 (colectomy) and €1881 (mastectomy), mainly caused by prolonged length of hospital stay. National hospital costs were estimated at €10 million, €29 million and €0.6 million, respectively. National disease burden was greatest for SSIs following colectomy (3200 DALYs/year, 150 DALYs/100 SSIs), while individual disease burden was highest following THA (1200 DALYs/year, 250 DALYs/100 SSIs). For mastectomy, these DALYs were <1. The total cost of DALYs for the three types of surgery exceeded €88 million. CONCLUSION: Depending on the type of surgery, SSIs cause a significant burden, both economically and in loss of years in full health. This underlines the importance of appropriate infection prevention and control measures.

Prevalence and incidence of surgical site infections in the European Union/European Economic Area: how do these measures relate?

BACKGROUND: In 2011-2012, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) initiated the first European point prevalence survey (PPS) of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) in addition to targeted surveillance of the incidence of specific types of HCAI such as surgical site infections (SSIs). AIM: To investigate whether national and multi-country SSI incidence can be estimated from ECDC PPS data. METHODS: In all, 159 hospitals were included from 15 countries that participated in both ECDC surveillance modules, aligning surgical procedures in the incidence surveillance to corresponding specialties from the PPS. National daily prevalence of SSIs was simulated from the incidence surveillance data, the Rhame and Sudderth (R&S) formula was used to estimate national and multi-country SSI incidence from the PPS data, and national incidence per specialty was predicted using a linear model including data from the PPS. FINDINGS: The simulation of daily SSI prevalence from incidence surveillance of SSIs showed that prevalence fluctuated randomly depending on the day of measurement. The correlation between the national aggregated incidence estimated with R&S formula and observed SSI incidence was low (correlation coefficient = 0.24), but specialty-specific incidence results were more reliable, especially when the number of included patients was large (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.40 to 1.00). The linear prediction model including PPS data had low proportion of explained variance (0.40). CONCLUSION: Due to a lack of accuracy, use of PPS data to estimate SSI incidence is recommended only in situations where incidence surveillance of SSIs is not performed, and where sufficiently large samples of PPS data are available.

Summary of the Dutch S3-guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis 2011. Dutch Society of Dermatology and Venereology.

This document provides a summary of the Dutch S3-guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis. These guidelines were finalized in December 2011 and contain unique chapters on the treatment of psoriasis of the face and flexures, childhood psoriasis as well as the patient's perspective on treatment. They also cover the topical treatment of psoriasis, photo(chemo)therapy, conventional systemic therapy and biological therapy.

Use of surgical-site infection rates to rank hospital performance across several types of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Comparing and ranking hospitals based on health outcomes is becoming increasingly popular, although case-mix differences between hospitals and random variation are known to distort interpretation. The aim of this study was to explore whether surgical-site infection (SSI) rates are suitable for comparing hospitals, taking into account case-mix differences and random variation. METHODS: Data from the national surveillance network in the Netherlands, on the eight most frequently registered types of surgery for the year 2009, were used to calculate SSI rates. The variation in SSI rate between hospitals was estimated with multivariable fixed- and random-effects logistic regression models to account for random variation and case mix. 'Rankability' (as the reliability of ranking) of the SSI rates was calculated by relating within-hospital variation to between-hospital variation. RESULTS: Thirty-four hospitals reported on 13 629 patients, with overall SSI rates per surgical procedure varying between 0 and 15·1 per cent. Statistically significant differences in SSI rate between hospitals were found for colonic resection, caesarean section and for all operations combined. Rankability was 80 per cent for colonic resection but 0 per cent for caesarean section. Rankability was 8 per cent in all operations combined, as the differences in SSI rates were explained mainly by case mix. CONCLUSION: When comparing SSI rates in all operations, differences between hospitals were explained by case mix. For individual types of surgery, case mix varied less between hospitals, and differences were explained largely by random variation. Although SSI rates may be used for monitoring quality improvement within hospitals, they should not be used for ranking hospitals.