Modeling relaxed policies for discontinuation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus contact precautions

Jiaming Cui, Jack Heavey, Leo Lin, Eili Y. Klein, Gregory R. Madden, Costi D. Sifri, Bryan Lewis, Anil K. Vullikanti, B. Aditya Prakash
{"title":"Modeling relaxed policies for discontinuation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus contact precautions","authors":"Jiaming Cui, Jack Heavey, Leo Lin, Eili Y. Klein, Gregory R. Madden, Costi D. Sifri, Bryan Lewis, Anil K. Vullikanti, B. Aditya Prakash","doi":"10.1017/ice.2024.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Objective:</span><p>To evaluate the economic costs of reducing the University of Virginia Hospital’s present “3-negative” policy, which continues methicillin-resistant <span>Staphylococcus aureus</span> (MRSA) contact precautions until patients receive 3 consecutive negative test results, to either 2 or 1 negative.</p><span>Design:</span><p>Cost-effective analysis.</p><span>Settings:</span><p>The University of Virginia Hospital.</p><span>Patients:</span><p>The study included data from 41,216 patients from 2015 to 2019.</p><span>Methods:</span><p>We developed a model for MRSA transmission in the University of Virginia Hospital, accounting for both environmental contamination and interactions between patients and providers, which were derived from electronic health record (EHR) data. The model was fit to MRSA incidence over the study period under the current 3-negative clearance policy. A counterfactual simulation was used to estimate outcomes and costs for 2- and 1-negative policies compared with the current 3-negative policy.</p><span>Results:</span><p>Our findings suggest that 2-negative and 1-negative policies would have led to 6 (95% CI, −30 to 44; <span>P</span> &lt; .001) and 17 (95% CI, −23 to 59; −10.1% to 25.8%; <span>P</span> &lt; .001) more MRSA cases, respectively, at the hospital over the study period. Overall, the 1-negative policy has statistically significantly lower costs ($628,452; 95% CI, $513,592–$752,148) annually (<span>P</span> &lt; .001) in US dollars, inflation-adjusted for 2023) than the 2-negative policy ($687,946; 95% CI, $562,522–$812,662) and 3-negative ($702,823; 95% CI, $577,277–$846,605).</p><span>Conclusions:</span><p>A single negative MRSA nares PCR test may provide sufficient evidence to discontinue MRSA contact precautions, and it may be the most cost-effective option.</p>","PeriodicalId":13558,"journal":{"name":"Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the economic costs of reducing the University of Virginia Hospital’s present “3-negative” policy, which continues methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) contact precautions until patients receive 3 consecutive negative test results, to either 2 or 1 negative.

Design:

Cost-effective analysis.

Settings:

The University of Virginia Hospital.

Patients:

The study included data from 41,216 patients from 2015 to 2019.

Methods:

We developed a model for MRSA transmission in the University of Virginia Hospital, accounting for both environmental contamination and interactions between patients and providers, which were derived from electronic health record (EHR) data. The model was fit to MRSA incidence over the study period under the current 3-negative clearance policy. A counterfactual simulation was used to estimate outcomes and costs for 2- and 1-negative policies compared with the current 3-negative policy.

Results:

Our findings suggest that 2-negative and 1-negative policies would have led to 6 (95% CI, −30 to 44; P < .001) and 17 (95% CI, −23 to 59; −10.1% to 25.8%; P < .001) more MRSA cases, respectively, at the hospital over the study period. Overall, the 1-negative policy has statistically significantly lower costs ($628,452; 95% CI, $513,592–$752,148) annually (P < .001) in US dollars, inflation-adjusted for 2023) than the 2-negative policy ($687,946; 95% CI, $562,522–$812,662) and 3-negative ($702,823; 95% CI, $577,277–$846,605).

Conclusions:

A single negative MRSA nares PCR test may provide sufficient evidence to discontinue MRSA contact precautions, and it may be the most cost-effective option.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
建立中止耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌接触防护措施的宽松政策模型
目的:评估将弗吉尼亚大学医院目前的 "3阴性 "政策(即在患者获得连续3次阴性检测结果之前继续采取耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)接触预防措施)减少到2次或1次阴性的经济成本。设置:弗吉尼亚大学医院.患者:研究纳入了2015年至2019年期间41216名患者的数据.方法:我们建立了弗吉尼亚大学医院MRSA传播模型,考虑了环境污染以及患者和医疗服务提供者之间的互动,这些数据来自电子健康记录(EHR)数据。该模型适用于研究期间现行三阴性清除政策下的 MRSA 感染率。结果:我们的研究结果表明,在研究期间,2阴性和1阴性政策将导致医院的MRSA病例分别增加6例(95% CI,-30到44;P <.001)和17例(95% CI,-23到59;-10.1%到25.8%;P <.001)。总体而言,与 2 阴性政策(687,946 美元;95% CI,562,522 美元-812,662 美元)和 3 阴性政策(702,823 美元;95% CI,577,277 美元-846,605 美元)相比,1 阴性政策每年的成本(628,452 美元;95% CI,513,592 美元-752,148 美元)(P <.001)(以 2023 年通货膨胀调整后的美元价格计算)明显更低(P <.001)。结论:单次 MRSA 鼻腔 PCR 检测阴性可为停止 MRSA 接触性预防提供充分证据,而且可能是最具成本效益的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Healthcare worker attitudes on routine non-urological preoperative urine cultures: a qualitative assessment Use of human-centric and participatory design for modifying a daily environmental cleaning checklist: a quality improvement study A need for a global alert system for rapid recall of contaminated products to prevent ongoing hospital outbreaks. Impact and learner perspectives of a spaced-education platform to assess hand hygiene auditor competency Development and implementation of the Antimicrobial Stewardship Intervention Scoring Tool at a single pediatric institution
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1