Abstract
Surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance methods are not standardised and are often time-consuming. We compared an active method, based on orthopaedic department staff reporting suspected SSI, with a semi-automated method, based on computerised extraction of surgical revisions, after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Both methods allowed finding the same SSI cases. We found the same sensitivity but higher specificity with a straightforward time gain using the passive method. This represents an added value for the organisation of an effective SSI surveillance, based on existing hospital databases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
