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: One hundred and thirty hours 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 organisation 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; organisation 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.

Cost-benefit analysis of surveillance for surgical site infection following caesarean section.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic burden to the health service of surgical site infection following caesarean section and to identify potential savings achievable through implementation of a surveillance programme. DESIGN: Economic model to evaluate the costs and benefits of surveillance from community and hospital healthcare providers' perspective. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: Women undergoing caesarean section in National Health Service hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Costs attributable to treatment and management of surgical site infection following caesarean section. RESULTS: The costs (2010) for a hospital carrying out 800 caesarean sections a year based on infection risk of 9.6% were estimated at £18 914 (95% CI 11 521 to 29 499) with 28% accounted for by community care (£5370). With inflation to 2019 prices, this equates to an estimated cost of £5.0 m for all caesarean sections performed annually in England 2018-2019, approximately £1866 and £93 per infection managed in hospital and community, respectively. The cost of surveillance for a hospital for one calendar quarter was estimated as £3747 (2010 costs). Modelling a decrease in risk of infection of 30%, 20% or 10% between successive surveillance periods indicated that a variable intermittent surveillance strategy achieved higher or similar net savings than continuous surveillance. Breakeven was reached sooner with the variable surveillance strategy than continuous surveillance when the baseline risk of infection was 10% or 15% and smaller loses with a baseline risk of 5%. CONCLUSION: Surveillance of surgical site infections after caesarean section with feedback of data to surgical teams offers a potentially effective means to reduce infection risk, improve patient experience and save money for the health service.

A cost-effectiveness modelling study of strategies to reduce risk of infection following primary hip replacement based on a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A deep infection of the surgical site is reported in 0.7% of all cases of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This often leads to revision surgery that is invasive, painful and costly. A range of strategies is employed in NHS hospitals to reduce risk, yet no economic analysis has been undertaken to compare the value for money of competing prevention strategies. OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs and health benefits of strategies that reduce the risk of deep infection following THA in NHS hospitals. To make recommendations to decision-makers about the cost-effectiveness of the alternatives. DESIGN: The study comprised a systematic review and cost-effectiveness decision analysis. SETTING: 77,321 patients who had a primary hip arthroplasty in NHS hospitals in 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Nine different treatment strategies including antibiotic prophylaxis, antibiotic-impregnated cement and ventilation systems used in the operating theatre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in the number of deep infections, change in the total costs and change in the total health benefits in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). DATA SOURCES: Literature searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were undertaken to cover the period 1966-2012 to identify infection prevention strategies. Relevant journals, conference proceedings and bibliographies of retrieved papers were hand-searched. Orthopaedic surgeons and infection prevention experts were also consulted. REVIEW METHODS: English-language papers only. The selection of evidence was by two independent reviewers. Studies were included if they were interventions that reported THA-related deep surgical site infection (SSI) as an outcome. Mixed-treatment comparisons were made to produce estimates of the relative effects of competing infection control strategies. RESULTS: Twelve studies, six randomised controlled trials and six observational studies, involving 123,788 total hip replacements (THRs) and nine infection control strategies, were identified. The quality of the evidence was judged against four categories developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Methods for Development of NICE Public Health Guidance ( http://publications.nice.org.uk/methods-for-the-development-of-nice-public-health-guidance-third-edition-pmg4 ), accessed March 2012. All evidence was found to fit the two highest categories of 1 and 2. Nine competing infection control interventions [treatments (Ts) 1-9] were used in a cohort simulation model of 77,321 patients who had a primary THR in 2012. Predictions were made for cases of deep infection and total costs, and QALY outcomes. Compared with a baseline of T1 (no systemic antibiotics, plain cement and conventional ventilation) all other treatment strategies reduced risk. T6 was the most effective (systemic antibiotics, antibiotic-impregnated cement and conventional ventilation) and prevented a further 1481 cases of deep infection, and led to the largest annual cost savings and the greatest gains to QALYs. The additional uses of laminar airflow and body exhaust suits indicate higher costs and worse health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: T6 is an optimal strategy for reducing the risk of SSI following THA. The other strategies that are commonly used among NHS hospitals lead to higher cost and worse QALY outcomes. Policy-makers, therefore, have an opportunity to save resources and improve health outcomes. The effects of laminar air flow and body exhaust suits might be further studied if policy-makers are to consider disinvesting in these technologies. LIMITATIONS: A wide range of evidence sources was synthesised and there is large uncertainty in the conclusions. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the Queensland Health Quality Improvement and Enhancement Programme (grant number 2008001769).

Formative research on the feasibility of hygiene interventions for influenza control in UK primary schools.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to increase hand washing in schools have been advocated as a means to reduce the transmission of pandemic influenza and other infections. However, the feasibility and acceptability of effective school-based hygiene interventions is not clear. METHODS: A pilot study in four primary schools in East London was conducted to establish the current need for enhanced hand hygiene interventions, identify barriers to their implementation and to test their acceptability and feasibility. The pilot study included key informant interviews with teachers and school nurses, interviews, group discussions and essay questions with the children, and testing of organised classroom hand hygiene activities. RESULTS: In all schools, basic issues of personal hygiene were taught especially in the younger age groups. However, we identified many barriers to implementing intensive hygiene interventions, in particular time constraints and competing health issues. Teachers' motivation to teach hygiene and enforce hygienic behaviour was primarily educational rather than immediate infection control. Children of all age groups had good knowledge of hygiene practices and germ transmission. CONCLUSION: The pilot study showed that intensive hand hygiene interventions are feasible and acceptable but only temporarily during a period of a particular health threat such as an influenza pandemic, and only if rinse-free hand sanitisers are used. However, in many settings there may be logistical issues in providing all schools with an adequate supply. In the absence of evidence on effectiveness, the scope for enhanced hygiene interventions in schools in high income countries aiming at infection control appears to be limited in the absence of a severe public health threat.