Validiteten af et infektionsregistreringssystem.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Validiteten af et infektionsregistreringssystem. / Jensen, P.; Haugegaard, L. M.; Thomsen, H.; Roikjaer, O.

In: Ugeskrift for Laeger, Vol. 156, No. 9, 28.02.1994, p. 1273-1275.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Jensen, P, Haugegaard, LM, Thomsen, H & Roikjaer, O 1994, 'Validiteten af et infektionsregistreringssystem.', Ugeskrift for Laeger, vol. 156, no. 9, pp. 1273-1275.

APA

Jensen, P., Haugegaard, L. M., Thomsen, H., & Roikjaer, O. (1994). Validiteten af et infektionsregistreringssystem. Ugeskrift for Laeger, 156(9), 1273-1275.

Vancouver

Jensen P, Haugegaard LM, Thomsen H, Roikjaer O. Validiteten af et infektionsregistreringssystem. Ugeskrift for Laeger. 1994 Feb 28;156(9):1273-1275.

Author

Jensen, P. ; Haugegaard, L. M. ; Thomsen, H. ; Roikjaer, O. / Validiteten af et infektionsregistreringssystem. In: Ugeskrift for Laeger. 1994 ; Vol. 156, No. 9. pp. 1273-1275.

Bibtex

@article{f62537f4ba2148a9bf01f76c930b024d,
title = "Validiteten af et infektionsregistreringssystem.",
abstract = "A study was undertaken to determine the sensitivity of a computerized surveillance system for postoperative wound infection. From 1987 to 1990, 5177 orthopaedic operations were recorded. Four hundred and forty-five randomly selected patients received a questionnaire. Three hundred and eighty-eight (87.2%) replied. Of 355 (79.8%) usable answers, 75 (21.1%) stated to have had signs of infection, 50 (14.1%) had been seen by a doctor, 25 (7.0%) had not found this necessary. We found seven patients with deep wound infection of which three were not recorded. The sensitivity of the surveillance system concerning deep wound infection was found to be 57.1% (18.4-90.1), and for superficial wound infection to be 9.1% (1.9-24.3). We conclude that the surveillance system is not useful for the intended purpose. We propose to record a few selected types of operation, where all should be seen as out-patients at a suitable time following operation, and thereby get a more valid recording of the frequency of postoperative wound infection.",
author = "P. Jensen and Haugegaard, {L. M.} and H. Thomsen and O. Roikjaer",
year = "1994",
month = feb,
day = "28",
language = "Dansk",
volume = "156",
pages = "1273--1275",
journal = "Ugeskrift for Laeger",
issn = "0041-5782",
publisher = "Almindelige Danske Laegeforening",
number = "9",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validiteten af et infektionsregistreringssystem.

AU - Jensen, P.

AU - Haugegaard, L. M.

AU - Thomsen, H.

AU - Roikjaer, O.

PY - 1994/2/28

Y1 - 1994/2/28

N2 - A study was undertaken to determine the sensitivity of a computerized surveillance system for postoperative wound infection. From 1987 to 1990, 5177 orthopaedic operations were recorded. Four hundred and forty-five randomly selected patients received a questionnaire. Three hundred and eighty-eight (87.2%) replied. Of 355 (79.8%) usable answers, 75 (21.1%) stated to have had signs of infection, 50 (14.1%) had been seen by a doctor, 25 (7.0%) had not found this necessary. We found seven patients with deep wound infection of which three were not recorded. The sensitivity of the surveillance system concerning deep wound infection was found to be 57.1% (18.4-90.1), and for superficial wound infection to be 9.1% (1.9-24.3). We conclude that the surveillance system is not useful for the intended purpose. We propose to record a few selected types of operation, where all should be seen as out-patients at a suitable time following operation, and thereby get a more valid recording of the frequency of postoperative wound infection.

AB - A study was undertaken to determine the sensitivity of a computerized surveillance system for postoperative wound infection. From 1987 to 1990, 5177 orthopaedic operations were recorded. Four hundred and forty-five randomly selected patients received a questionnaire. Three hundred and eighty-eight (87.2%) replied. Of 355 (79.8%) usable answers, 75 (21.1%) stated to have had signs of infection, 50 (14.1%) had been seen by a doctor, 25 (7.0%) had not found this necessary. We found seven patients with deep wound infection of which three were not recorded. The sensitivity of the surveillance system concerning deep wound infection was found to be 57.1% (18.4-90.1), and for superficial wound infection to be 9.1% (1.9-24.3). We conclude that the surveillance system is not useful for the intended purpose. We propose to record a few selected types of operation, where all should be seen as out-patients at a suitable time following operation, and thereby get a more valid recording of the frequency of postoperative wound infection.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028781516&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Tidsskriftartikel

C2 - 8009749

AN - SCOPUS:0028781516

VL - 156

SP - 1273

EP - 1275

JO - Ugeskrift for Laeger

JF - Ugeskrift for Laeger

SN - 0041-5782

IS - 9

ER -

ID: 203892474