Cost analysis of an intervention to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) transmission

10Citations
Citations of this article
50Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction. Our objective was to assess the cost implications of a vertical MRSA prevention program that led to a reduction in MRSA bacteremia. Methods. We performed a matched historical cohort study and cost analysis in a single hospital in Israel for the years 2005-2011. The cost of MRSA bacteremia was calculated as total hospital cost for patients admitted with bacteremia and for patients with hospital-acquired bacteremia, the difference in cost compared to matched controls. The cost of prevention was calculated as the sum of the cost of microbiology tests, single-use equipment used for patients in isolation, and infection control personnel. Results. An average of 20,000 patients were screened yearly. The cost of prevention was $208,100 per year, with the major contributor being laboratory cost. We calculated that our intervention averted 34 cases of bacteremia yearly: 17 presenting on admission and 17 acquired in the hospital. The average cost of a case admitted with bacteremia was $14,500, and the net cost attributable to nosocomial bacteremia was $9,400. Antibiotics contributed only 0.4% of the total disease management cost. When the annual cost of averted cases of bacteremia and that of prevention were compared, the intervention resulted in annual cost savings of $199,600. Conclusions. A vertical MRSA prevention program targeted at high-risk patients, which was highly effective in preventing bacteremia, is cost saving. These results suggest that allocating resources to targeted prevention efforts might be beneficial even in a single institution in a high incidence country.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chowers, M., Carmeli, Y., Shitrit, P., Elhayany, A., & Geffen, K. (2015). Cost analysis of an intervention to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) transmission. PLoS ONE, 10(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138999

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free