Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an Academic Hospital Setting

School of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 4.18). 05/2012; 33(5):477-86. DOI: 10.1086/665315
Source: PubMed


To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 alternative active screening strategies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): universal surveillance screening for all hospital admissions, targeted surveillance screening for intensive care unit admissions, and no surveillance screening.
Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision modeling.
Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the perspective of an 800-bed academic hospital with 40,000 annual admissions over the time horizon of a hospitalization. All input probabilities, costs, and outcome data were obtained through a comprehensive literature review. Effectiveness outcome was MRSA healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
In the base case, targeted surveillance screening was a dominant strategy (ie, was associated with lower costs and resulted in better outcomes) for preventing MRSA HAI. Universal surveillance screening was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $14,955 per MRSA HAI. In one-way sensitivity analysis, targeted surveillance screening was a dominant strategy across most parameter ranges. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also demonstrated that targeted surveillance screening was the most cost-effective strategy when willingness to pay to prevent a case of MRSA HAI was less than $71,300.
Targeted active surveillance screening for MRSA is the most cost-effective screening strategy in an academic hospital setting. Additional studies that are based on actual hospital data are needed to validate this model. However, the model supports current recommendations to use active surveillance to detect MRSA.

1 Follower
8 Reads
  • Source
    • "MRSA screening is commonly practiced as an infection control measure for patients being admitted to hospitals to quickly identify colonized patients (Weber et al., 2007). However, programs currently employ only nasal screening (Kang et al., 2012). Because of the increased interest in identifying MRSA carriers rapidly to reduce hospital transmission of MRSA, we sought to validate the Xpert SA Nasal Complete for use with inguinal specimens to improve our chances of detecting MRSA colonization in an emergency department (ED) population presenting with cutaneous abscesses (Olchanski et al., 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Extranasal sites are common reservoirs of Staphylococcus aureus colonization, and may be relevant for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) screening and infection control strategies. The objective here was to determine whether inguinal specimens could also be screened using Xpert SA Nasal Complete assay for MRSA. Results were compared to broth enrichment culture. Among 162 consented adults seeking care in the Emergency Department for cutaneous abscesses, inguinal specimens were found positive for MRSA more often than nares specimens; 24% and 26% by PCR or culture, respectively compared to 19% each by PCR or culture. Overall, 6% of adults colonized with MRSA would have been missed by nares screening alone. Compared to culture, Xpert SA Nasal Complete assay demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 89% and 97%, respectively for detecting nares and/or inguinal MRSA colonization. In conclusion, inguinal specimens were a more common reservoir for MRSA than nares specimens in this population of patients.
    Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 06/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.05.016 · 2.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Contact precautions are routinely employed for the control of multidrug-resistant organisms. Robust measures, however, for the incremental benefit of contact precautions, gowns, gloves, and active detection and isolation strategies for the prevention of cross-transmission in endemic settings are lacking. Unintended consequences and adverse effects from contact precautions, including patient dissatisfaction with care, depression, medication errors, and fewer provider visits, have been reported. Universal gloving strategies in lieu of contact precautions have produced mixed results and raise concerns about a decrease in hand hygiene by glove wearers. We suggest that the use of a sound, horizontal infection prevention strategy that widely and consistently implements infection prevention best practices may be a sufficient and least restrictive alternative strategy for the control of endemic multidrug-resistant pathogens.
    Current Infectious Disease Reports 10/2012; 14(6). DOI:10.1007/s11908-012-0299-8 · 1.68 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent evidence from publications describing the success of interventions to control hospital meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), often in the endemic setting, is reviewed. Overall, there is cautious ground for optimism that MRSA can be controlled in a cost-effective manner by employing a bundle approach, the mainstay of which is widespread admission screening to inform patient-specific control measures.
    Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance 03/2013; 1(1):43–45. DOI:10.1016/j.jgar.2013.01.006 · 1.09 Impact Factor
Show more