A peer-level look at how surgeons adapt surgical site infection prevention when diabetes, wound contamination, operative context, suspected deep infection, and real-world protocol adherence begin to change the risk equation.
Audience: Surgeons
Countries: 6
Completion Rate: 71.3%
SGID: 900180
-Hero findings
– Quick Read — Key Findings
For surgeons, prevention begins before incision but does not end with a checklist. Patient risk, wound class, procedure type, intraoperative execution, early recognition, and source control can all change what a technically correct prevention pathway needs to look like.
Current guidance from the CDC, SHEA/IDSA/APIC, WHO and NICE reinforces a bundle approach: antimicrobial prophylaxis, antisepsis, glucose management, selected decolonization, sterile technique, surveillance and consistent implementation. The MDForLives data adds the surgeon view of where that bundle becomes most vulnerable in practice.
51.9% say poorly controlled diabetes is the patient profile that most increases their SSI prevention efforts.
Poorly controlled diabetes leads the patient profiles that intensify prevention at 51.9%, and the signal continues into planning, with 30.3% naming poor glycemic control as the finding that most changes preoperative strategy. Metabolic control enters the surgeon’s infection-prevention decision well before the procedure starts.
36.8% say contaminated wound classification most changes their preoperative SSI strategy, ahead of poor glycemic control at 30.3%.
Contaminated or dirty surgery leads the operative scenarios that change strategy at 43.8%, with prosthetic implant surgery close behind at 38.6%. The prevention plan is not identical across clean elective surgery, implanted material and an already contaminated field.
52.9% prioritize timely antibiotic prophylaxis before incision, followed by chlorhexidine-alcohol skin preparation at 29.0%.
Timely antibiotic prophylaxis before incision is prioritized by 52.9%, matching guidance that prophylaxis must reach useful tissue concentrations at incision, while antisepsis and procedure-specific measures round out the bundle. The low selection of S. aureus decolonization reflects that it is not a universal intervention.
40.0% identify uncontrolled patient risk as the most common driver of SSI prevention failure; 28.4% select protocol non-adherence.
Uncontrolled patient risk is the most common driver of prevention failure at 40.0%, with sterile-technique breaches (21.9%) and incorrect antibiotic timing (9.7%) behind. That separates two failure types, risk that is hard to modify and process that should be reproducible, and programs need both: a perfect checklist cannot neutralize high baseline risk, nor can risk stratification compensate for inconsistent execution.
49.4% select CT or MRI evaluation as their primary next step for suspected deep SSI; 25.3% select deep-tissue cultures.
CT or MRI evaluation is the primary next step for suspected deep SSI at 49.4%, ahead of empiric IV antibiotics (18.2%) and surgical exploration (7.1%). The focus shifts from prevention to defining depth and extent, obtaining microbiology, and deciding whether a drainable or surgically correctable source exists.
69.7% identify protocol non-adherence as the biggest limitation to consistent SSI prevention.
Protocol non-adherence dominates the barriers at 69.7%, far ahead of limited infection-control resources (17.8%), operating-room time pressures (6.6%) and stewardship constraints (5.9%). Looking ahead, 34.2% choose personalized prevention protocols as the most transformative development, wanting more risk sensitivity without losing standardized reliability.
The survey points to a two-layer prevention model: one standardized, timely prophylaxis, skin preparation, sterile technique, surveillance and reliable execution; the other patient- and procedure-specific, diabetes, immune status, wound contamination, implanted material and the chance that source control becomes necessary if infection develops.
The strongest implementation signal is protocol non-adherence, sitting beside another key result: uncontrolled patient risk is the most selected driver of prevention failure. SSI reduction is therefore neither only a compliance problem nor only a risk-stratification problem, high-risk surgery needs both a dependable baseline bundle and a plan for the factors that make it less forgiving.
The forward-looking response is therefore not simply “more protocol”: surgeons most often pick personalized prevention protocols as the likely transformer. The challenge is to personalize without unnecessary variation, make the essential steps consistent, then use risk to decide what added prevention, monitoring, diagnostic work-up or multidisciplinary input is warranted.
You have read the summary
Explore the complete findings in the full report, or join MDForLives to contribute your perspectives to future healthcare research.
Direct answers to common clinical questions about SSI prevention, prophylaxis, patient risk, decolonization, suspected deep infection, and antibiotic decisions.
Direct answers to the questions healthcare professionals are most likely to ask about these findings.
