Normal view MARC view

International comparison of results of infection surveillance: the Netherlands versus Belgium [Article de Revue]

[Comparaison des résultats de la surveillance des infections aux Pays-Bas et en Belgique]
Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology. Epidemiology Section. Bruxelles. Belgique
Infection control and hospital epidemiology. 1994/09; 15(9) : 574-580
Summary: OBJECTIF : Montrer l'intérêt de comparer les résultats de 2 réseaux de surveillance nationale. METHODES : 2 études multicentriques prospectives des infections de site opératoire. Lieu : 35 et 62 hôpitaux de court séjour généraux aux Pays-Bas et en Belgique respectivement, entre le 1/10/1991 et le 30/6/1992. Les résultats se trouvent dans l'article. CONCLUSION : Les comparaisons internationales apportent un regard intéressant sur la qualité des soins au-delà du domaine de la prévention des infections nosocomiales. Cela constitue un argument en faveur d'une meilleure harmonisation entre les réseaux de surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential benefit of comparing results from two national surveillance networks. DESIGN: Two prospective multicenter cohort studies of surgical wound infections (SWI). SETTING: Thirty-five and 62 acute-care hospitals in The Netherlands (NL) and Belgium (B), respectively, from October 1, 1991, to June 30, 1992. RESULTS: The participation was equivalent in the two countries: 27% (NL) and 28% (B) of all acute-care hospitals. Marked differences emerged between the Dutch and Belgian crude infection rates and the specific rates by wound class and other risk factors. Because the case-mix in the countries is quite different, comparisons can be made only by specific surgical category. The results for inguinal hernia repair and for appendectomy are compared as an example. In herniorrhaphies, the difference in infection rate (0.4% [NL] versus 1.2% [B]) is not explained by differences in the distribution of risk factors. The shorter hospital stay in The Netherlands (4 days [NL] versus 6 days [B]), the more effective postdischarge surveillance in Belgium, and the fact that more than two thirds of the detected infections occurred after the first postoperative week probably can account for most of the difference. There was a striking difference in prophylaxis use (3.7% [NL] versus 41.9% [B]). In appendectomies, the Dutch patient population shows on average a higher risk profile, and surgery is urgent much more often in The Netherlands (78.3%) than in Belgium (49.2%). The infection rate is higher in The Netherlands, especially among the patients without prophylaxis, which again is employed less frequently there. CONCLUSION: We conclude that international comparisons yield interesting insights regarding quality of care, reaching beyond the field of nosocomial infection prevention. This is an argument in favor of more harmonization between surveillance networks.(RESUME D'AUTEUR)



Number of ref

ID notice

Location Call number Status Date due Barcode
CClin Est
CHU de Nancy - Hôpitaux de Brabois
Rue du Morvan
54511 Vandoeuvre le Nancy Cedex
Tél :
CClin Ouest
CHU Hôtel Dieu
CS 26419
35064 Rennes Cedex 2
Tél :
CCLIN Paris Nord
CClin Paris-Nord
96 rue Didot
75014 Paris
Tél :
CClin Sud-Est
Hospices Civils de Lyon
Hôpital Henry Gabriel
20 route de vourles
69230 Saint-Genis-Laval
Tél :
CCLIN Sud-Ouest
CClin Sud-Ouest
CHU de Bordeaux
Hôpital Pellegrin - Bâtiment Le Tondu
33076 Bordeaux
Tél :

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.
Tags from this library:
No tags from this library for this title.
Log in to add tags.
    average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)