title: Interhospital comparisons of coronary artery bypass graft surgical site infection rates differ if donor sites are excluded.
abstract: The advent of public reporting of hospital-acquired infection rates has sparked ongoing discussion about the most appropriate surveillance data to present. When we used different numerators to calculate rates of surgical site infection following coronary artery bypass graft surgery, we found that some hospitals' rates and their rankings were notably affected.
authors.affiliation: Victorian Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance System Coordinating Centre, Melbourne, Australia. philip.russo@mh.org.au
authors.forename: P L
authors.initials: PL
authors.lastname: Russo
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Gurrin
authors.forename: N D
authors.initials: ND
authors.lastname: Friedman
authors.forename: A L
authors.initials: AL
authors.lastname: Bull
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Marasco
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Kelly
authors.forename: C J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Boardman
authors.forename: M J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Richards
mesh_terms: D001026:Coronary Artery Bypass / Q000009:adverse effects*; D003428:Cross Infection / Q000453:epidemiology*; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D018571:Sentinel Surveillance; D013223:Statistics as Topic / Q000379:methods; D013530:Surgical Wound Infection / Q000453:epidemiology*; D014739:Victoria / Q000453:epidemiology