Abstract
BackgroundMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections represent a serious challenge for health-care institutions. Rapid and precise identification of MRSA carriers can help to reduce both nosocomial transmissions and unnecessary isolations and associated costs. The practical details of MRSA screenings (who, how, when and where to screen) remain a controversial issue.MethodsAim of this study was to determine which MRSA screening and management strategy causes the lowest expected cost for a hospital. For this cost analysis a decision analytic cost model was developed, primary based on data from peer-reviewed literature. Single and multiplex sensitivity analyses of the parameters “costs per MRSA case per day”, “costs for pre-emptive isolation per day”, “MRSA rate of transmission not in isolation per day” and “MRSA prevalence” were conducted.ResultsThe omission of MRSA screening was identified as the alternative with the highest risk for the hospital. Universal MRSA screening strategies are by far more cost-intensive than targeted screening approaches. Culture confirmation of positive PCR results in combination with pre-emptive isolation generates the lowest costs for a hospital. This strategy minimizes the chance of false-positive results as well as the possibility of MRSA cross transmissions and therefore contains the costs for the hospital. These results were confirmed by multiplex and single sensitivity analyses. Single sensitivity analyses have shown that the parameters “MRSA prevalence” and the “rate of MRSA of transmission per day of non-isolated patients” exert the greatest influence on the choice of the favorite screening strategy.ConclusionsIt was shown that universal MRSA screening strategies are far more cost-intensive than the targeted screening approaches. In addition, it was demonstrated that all targeted screening strategies produce lower costs than not performing a screening at all.
Highlights
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections represent a serious challenge for health-care institutions
Strategy S, representing a targeted polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening and culture confirmation in the case of a positive PCR result and no pre-emptive isolation causes the lowest expected costs. This approach is closely followed by Strategy R, which uses a targeted PCR screening with culture confirmation in the case of a positive PCR result, but carries out pre-emptive isolation precautions
The results show that an omission of an MRSA screening causes higher costs than performing a targeted screening
Summary
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections represent a serious challenge for health-care institutions. In order to assure rapid treatment of MRSA patients, a reduction of unnecessary isolation precautions and prevention of potential cross infections as well as rapid and precise identification of MRSA are required. Targeted screening is limited to high-risk patients or areas of the hospital. Among these high-risk admissions are old and multi morbid patients, patients with chronic diseases, open wounds, eczema, burns, and patients requiring dialysis. The Robert Koch-Institute defines the following patient groups as high-risk patients: patients with nursing care dependency, dialysis patients, invasive lines or tubes such as catheters, patients with chronic wounds, burns, skin ulcers, gangrene soft tissue infection as well as patients with known MRSA anamnesis [8,9]. Certain areas of the hospital are declared as high-risk areas such as ICU, weaning ward, stroke unit and dermatological ward
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.