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.
- MU Compliance Announcement Sparks Concern, Confusion
- New G-Codes to Pay Doctors for Broad Array of Non-Face-to-Face Care
- Scary Financial Challenges for 2014
- MGMA Urges 'End-to-End' ICD-10 Testing
- Telehealth Improves Patient Care in ICUs
- 1 in 5 CT Screenings for Lung Cancer Results in Overdiagnosis
- CMS Sets 2014 Pay Rates for Hospital Outpatient and Physician Services
- LifePoint Bolsters Presence in Michigan's Upper Peninsula
- States Rejecting Medicaid Expansion Forgo Billions in Federal Funds
- Douglas Hawthorne—A Chance to Do Something Big