[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.204.247.205. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Viewpoint
December 2013

Surgical Site Infection MonitoringAre 2 Systems Better Than 1?

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 2Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
  • 3Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
JAMA Surg. 2013;148(12):1085-1086. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3020

Hospital-acquired infections are common and public reporting of their incidence is integral to defining “affordable and accountable care.” In the surgical patient population, surgical site infections (SSIs) occur in as many as 5% of patients following inpatient procedures and account for up to 17% of all hospital-acquired infections.1 Over the past 10 years, hospitals have devoted significant resources toward SSI prevention with mixed results. At the same time, the cost of health care in the United States continues to increase. As a means of controlling cost, payers are pushing for outcomes-based reimbursement that will retrospectively adjust payment for service based on adverse short-term patient outcomes. This will be in addition to ongoing surgical process measure–based public reporting related to SSI (surgical care improvement project).

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×