4.7 Article

Geographical outcome disparities in infection occurrence after colorectal surgery: An analysis of 58,096 colorectal surgical procedures

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 117-121

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.06.048

关键词

Colorectal surgery; Spatial analysis; Inequality; GIS

类别

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award [DE140101570]
  2. Australian Research Council [DE140101570] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite improved surgical practices and in-hospital surveillance systems, surgical site infections remain a major public health problem worldwide and often require readmission to hospital. The aim was to apply an advance and innovative spatial analysis approach to identify spatial pattern and clustering (hotspots) of surgical site infection rate (CSIR), and quantifying disparities across communities. Methods: We used the Admitted Patient Data Collection for patients aged 18 years and over who underwent colorectal surgery in a public hospital between 2002 and 2013 in the Australian State of New South Wales (NSW). The colorectal surgical infection rate (CSIR) was computed. We assessed geographical variation and clustering in CSIR patterning to demonstrate spatial pattern and clustering across communities in NSW, Australia. Results: There were 58,096 colorectal surgical procedures conducted in NSW from 2002 to 2013. The overall occurrence of CSIR was 9.64% (95%CI 9.40-9.88%). We found significant clusters of both high and low CSIR in outer regional and remote areas of NSW. Conclusion: Use of advanced spatial analyses allows identification of hotspots/clusters of adverse events that can help policy makers and clinicians better understand national patterns and initiate research to address disparities/geographical variation, and clustering of adverse events after surgery. (C) 2017 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据