An effort to improve the accuracy of documented surgical wound classifications.
BACKGROUND
Discordance between circulating nurse- and surgeon diagnosis-based wound classifications may lead to erroneous risk-adjusted rates of surgical site infections with effects on inter-hospital rating, reimbursement, and public perceptions regarding quality of care.


METHODS
After an initial two-month audit, we placed a wound class reference algorithm in each operating room and educated staff. An audit was repeated for a two-month period after this intervention. Statistical analysis of the whole and subgroup was performed.


RESULTS
Pre-intervention, the wound classifications for 70 of 300 cases were discordant. In the post-intervention group, 79 of 483 cases were discordant (p = 0.016). Subgroup analysis of colectomy and appendectomy cases demonstrated dramatically improved concordance. For colectomies, discordance dropped from 84.6% to 15% post-intervention (p = <0.001). Appendectomy discordance went from 80% of cases to 30.4% post-intervention (p = 0.001). Wound class discordance increased for the cholecystectomy subgroup (20.4%-37%) but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.066).


CONCLUSIONS
As we trend towards a pay-for-performance model, health care systems should review their internal controls on documenting surgical wound classes.
['Chupp|Ryan E|RE|', 'Edhayan|Elango|E|']
D000465:Algorithms D001062:Appendectomy D002763:Cholecystectomy D003082:Colectomy D004282:Documentation D006801:Humans D008485:Medical Audit D008824:Michigan D058996:Quality Improvement D020379:Risk Adjustment D000072836:Surgical Wound D013530:Surgical Wound Infection
Documentation Surgical wound classification Wound classification Surgical site infection Quality improvement