Modelling the Costs and Effects of Selective and Universal Hospital Admission Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Background: Screening at hospital admission for carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been proposed as a strategy to reduce nosocomial infections. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term costs and health benefits of selective and universal screening for MRSA at hospital admission, using both PCR-based and chromogenic media-based tests in various settings. Methodology/Principal Findings: A simulation model of MRSA transmission was used to determine costs and effects over 15 years from a US healthcare perspective. We compared admission screening together with isolation of identified carriers against a baseline policy without screening or isolation. Strategies included selective screening of high risk patients or universal admission screening, with PCR-based or chromogenic media-based tests, in medium (5%) or high nosocomial prevalence (15%) settings. The costs of screening and isolation per averted MRSA infection were lowest using selective chromogenic-based screening in high and medium prevalence settings, at $4,100 and$10,300, respectively. Replacing the chromogenic-based test with a PCR-based test costs $13,000 and$36,200 per additional infection averted, and subsequent extension to universal screening with PCR would cost $131,000 and$232,700 per additional infection averted, in high and medium prevalence settings respectively. Assuming $17,645 benefit per infection averted, the most cost-saving strategies in high and medium prevalence settings were selective screening with PCR and selective screening with chromogenic, respectively. Conclusions/ Significance: Admission screening costs$4,100-$21,200 per infection averted, depending on strategy and setting. Including financial benefits from averted infections, screening could well be cost saving

The Impact of Contact Isolation on the Quality of Inpatient Hospital Care

Background: Contact Isolation is a common hospital infection prevention method that may improve infectious outcomes but may also hinder healthcare delivery. Methods: To evaluate the impact of Contact Isolation on compliance with individual and composite process of care quality measures, we formed four retrospective diagnosis-based cohorts from a 662-bed tertiary-care medical center. Each cohor

The use of the Nursing Activities Score in clinical settings: an integrative review

ABSTRACT Objective analyze how studies have approached the results obtained from the application of the Nursing Activities Score (NAS) based on Donabedian’s model of healthcare organization and delivery. Method CINAHL and PubMed databases were searched for papers published between 2003 and March 2015. Results 36 articles that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed and double-coded by three independent coders and analyzed based on the three elements of Donabedian’s health care quality framework: structure, process and outcome. The most frequently addressed, but not always tested, variables were those that fell into the structure category. Conclusion variables that fell into the process category were used less frequently. Beside NAS, the most frequently used variables in the outcome category were mortality and length of stay. However, no study used a quality framework for healthcare or NAS to evaluate costs, and it is recommended that further research should explore this approach

Developing 'high impact' guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process

Background Quality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for improving clinical practice and are increasingly being developed from evidence-based guideline recommendations. We aimed to identify, select and apply guideline recommendations to develop a set of QIs to measure the implementation of evidence-based practice using routinely recorded clinical data in United Kingdom (UK) primary care. Methods We reviewed existing national clinical guidelines and QIs and used a four-stage consensus development process to derive a set of ‘high impact’ QIs relevant to primary care based upon explicit prioritisation criteria. We then field tested the QIs using remotely extracted, anonymised patient records from 89 randomly sampled primary care practices in the Yorkshire region of England. Results Out of 2365 recommendations and QIs originally reviewed, we derived a set of 18 QIs (5 single, 13 composites – comprising 2-9 individual recommendations) for field testing. QIs predominantly addressed chronic disease management, in particular diabetes, cardiovascular and renal disease, and included both processes and outcomes of care. Field testing proved to be critical for further refinement and final selection. Conclusions We have demonstrated a rigorous and transparent methodology to develop a set of high impact, evidence-based QIs for primary care from clinical guideline recommendations. While the development process was successful in developing a limited set of QIs, it remains challenging to derive robust new QIs from clinical guidelines in the absence of established systems for routine, structured recording of clinical care