Surgical Site Infections Persist, But Why?
Johns Hopkins physician-researcher Nauder Faraday, MD, this week said out loud what I bet many quality chiefs have been saying about surgical site infections, perhaps in between muttered curses, for quite some time.
He said there's little chance hospitals can consistently drive down infection rates to that elusive zerono matter how hard they try—and many are trying very, very hard. That's because, he says, there are other factors in play beyond a hospital's control, and scientists and doctors are so far clueless as to what those might be.
Some patients get infected, and some patients don't.
Therefore, he says, it's inappropriate for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to impose financial penalties, as it now does, by refusing to pay for additional care required when certain surgical procedures transmit a bug into a surgical cavity.
I don't agree with Faraday that the penalty, which has been in effect since October 1, is misguided. On the contrary, it has succeeded in putting fire under the feet of hospital teams and the surgeons who work there to take a hard look at their surgical processes, and even at how the patient is cared for at home.
- As Medicare Advantage Cuts Loom, Disagreement Over Program's Stability
- Surgical Checklists Unused in 10% of Hospitals, CMS Data Shows
- Doctors Feel Pressure to Accept Risk-based Reimbursement
- A Fresh Look at End-of-Life Care
- 3 in 4 Patients Want E-mail Consultations
- Heart Attack Patient Costs Skyrocket Beyond 30 Days
- Centralizing the Revenue Cycle Protects the Bottom Line
- ACGME Chief Sees 'Huge' Risk of Error in Proposed Assistant Physician Licensure
- 3 Insider Tips on Cutting Costs without Strangling Growth
- 4 Tectonic Shifts Shaking Up Healthcare