4.7 Article

Economic value of Acinetobacter baumannii screening in the intensive care unit

Journal

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages 1691-1697

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03491.x

Keywords

Acinetobacter; cost savings; economics; intensive care unit; screening

Funding

  1. National Institute General Medical Sciences Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study (MIDAS) [5U54GM088491-02]
  2. Pennsylvania Department of Health [4100047864]
  3. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [K24AI52788]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although Acinetobacter baumannii (A. baumannii) is an increasingly common nosocomial pathogen that can cause serious infections in the intensive care unit (ICU), most ICUs do not actively screen admissions for this pathogen. We developed an economic computer simulation model to determine the potential cost-consequences to the hospital of implementing routine A. baumannii screening of ICU admissions and isolating those patients who tested positive, comparing two screening methods, sponge and swab, with each other and no screening. Sensitivity analyses varied the colonization prevalence, percentage of colonized individuals who had active A. baumannii infections, A. baumannii reproductive rate (R), and contact isolation efficacy. Both screening methods were cost-effective for almost all scenarios tested, yielding cost-savings ranging from -$1 to -$1563. Sponge screening was not cost-saving when colonization prevalence was < 1%, probability of infection <= 30%, R <= 0.25, and contact isolation efficacy <= 25%. Swab screening was not cost-saving under these same conditions when the probability of infection was <= 40%. Sponge screening tended to be more cost-saving than swab screening (additional savings ranged from $1 to $421). Routine A. baumannii screening of ICU patients may save costs for hospitals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available