The daily direct costs of isolating patients identified with highly resistant micro-organisms in a non

Background: Isolation precautions are recommended when caring for patients identified with highly resistant micro-organisms (HRMOs). However, the direct costs of patients in isolation are largely unknown. Aim: To obtain detailed information on the daily direct costs associated with isolating patients identified with HRMOs. Methods: This study was performed from November until December 2017 on a 12-bed surgical ward. This ward contained solely isolation rooms with anterooms. The daily direct costs of isolation were based on three cost items: (1) additional personal protective equipment (PPE), measured by counting the consumption of empty packaging materials; (2) cleaning and disinfection of the isolation room, based on the costs of an outsourced cleaning company; and (3) additional workload for healthcare workers, based on literature and multiplied by the average gross hourly salary of nurses. A distinction was made between the costs for strict isolation, contact-plus isolation, and contact isolation. Findings: During the study period, 26 patients were nursed in isolation because of HRMO carriage. Time for donning and doffing of PPE was 31 min per day. The average daily direct costs of isolation were the least expensive for contact isolation (gown, gloves), €28/$31, and the most expensive for strict isolation (surgical mask, gloves, gown, cap), €41/$47. Conclusion: Using a novel, easy method to estimate consumption of PPE, we conclude that the daily direct costs of isolating a patient differ per type of isolation. Insight into the direct costs of isolation is of utmost importance when developing or updating infection prevention policies

A multimodal regional intervention strategy framed as friendly competition to improve hand hygiene compliance

Objective: To investigate the effects of friendly competition on hand hygiene compliance as part of a multimodal intervention programDesign: Prospective observational study in which the primary outcome was hand hygiene compliance. Differences were analyzed using the Pearson χ2 test. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval were calculated using multilevel logistic regression. Setting: Observations were performed in 9 public hospitals and 1 rehabilitation center in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Participants: From 2014 to 2016, at 5 time points (at 6-month intervals) in 120 hospital wards, 20,286 hand hygiene opportunities were observed among physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers (HCWs). Intervention: The multimodal, friendly competition intervention consisted of mandatory interventions: monitoring and feedback of hand hygiene compliance and optional interventions (ie, e-learning, kick-off workshop, observer training, and team training). Hand hygiene opportunities, as formulated by the World Health Organization (WHO), were unobtrusively observed at 5 time points by trained observers. Compliance data were presented to the healthcare organizations as a ranking. Results: The overall mean hand hygiene compliance at time point 1 was 42.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.4–44.4), which increased to 51.4% (95% CI, 49.8–53.0) at time point 5 (P<.001). Nurses showed a significant improvement between time points 1 and 5 (P< .001), whereas the compliance of physicians and other HCWs remained unchanged. In the multilevel logistic regressions, time points, type of ward, and type of HCW showed a significant association with compliance. Conclusion: Between the start and the end of the multimodal intervention program in a friendly competition setting, overall hand hygiene compliance increased significantly