Raising standards while watching the bottom line: making a business case for infection control.

Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 3.94). 11/2007; 28(10):1121-33. DOI: 10.1086/521852
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT While society would benefit from a reduced incidence of nosocomial infections, there is currently no direct reimbursement to hospitals for the purpose of infection control, which forces healthcare institutions to make economic decisions about funding infection control activities. Demonstrating value to administrators is an increasingly important function of the hospital epidemiologist because healthcare executives are faced with many demands and shrinking budgets. Aware of the difficulties that face local infection control programs, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Board of Directors appointed a task force to draft this evidence-based guideline to assist hospital epidemiologists in justifying and expanding their programs. In Part 1, we describe the basic steps needed to complete a business-case analysis for an individual institution. A case study based on a representative infection control intervention is provided. In Part 2, we review important basic economic concepts and describe approaches that can be used to assess the financial impact of infection prevention, surveillance, and control interventions, as well as the attributable costs of specific healthcare-associated infections. Both parts of the guideline aim to provide the hospital epidemiologist, infection control professional, administrator, and researcher with the tools necessary to complete a thorough business-case analysis and to undertake an outcome study of a nosocomial infection or an infection control intervention.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether common infection foci (pulmonary, intra-abdominal and primary bacteraemia) are associated with variations in mortality risk in patients with sepsis. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Three surgical intensive care units (ICUs) at a university medical centre. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 327 adult Caucasian patients with sepsis originating from pulmonary, intra-abdominal and primary bacteraemia participated in this study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The patients were followed for 90 days and mortality risk was recorded as the primary outcome variable. To monitor organ failure, sepsis-related organ failure assessment (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, SOFA) scores were evaluated at the onset of sepsis and throughout the observational period as secondary outcome variables. RESULTS: A total of 327 critically ill patients with sepsis were enrolled in this study. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the 90-day mortality risk was significantly higher among patients with primary bacteraemia than among those with pulmonary and intra-abdominal foci (58%, 35% and 32%, respectively; p=0.0208). To exclude the effects of several baseline variables, we performed multivariate Cox regression analysis. Primary bacteraemia remained a significant covariate for mortality in the multivariate analysis (HR 2.10; 95% CI 1.14 to 3.86; p=0.0166). During their stay in the ICU, the patients with primary bacteraemia presented significantly higher SOFA scores than those of the patients with pulmonary and intra-abdominal infection foci (8.5±4.7, 7.3±3.4 and 5.8±3.5, respectively). Patients with primary bacteraemia presented higher SOFA-renal score compared with the patients with other infection foci (1.6±1.4, 0.8±1.1 and 0.7±1.0, respectively); the patients with primary bacteraemia required significantly more renal replacement therapy than the patients in the other groups (29%, 11% and 12%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that patients with sepsis with primary bacteraemia present a higher mortality risk compared with patients with sepsis of pulmonary or intra-abdominal origins. These results should be assessed in patients with sepsis in larger, independent cohorts.
    BMJ Open 01/2015; 5(1)(1). DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006616 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Decontamination in Hospitals and Healthcare brings an understanding of decontamination practices and the development of technologies for cleaning and control of infection to a wide audience interested in public health, including healthcare specialists, scientists, students or patients. Part one highlights the importance and history of decontamination in hospitals and healthcare before exploring the role of standards in decontamination, infection control in Europe, and future trends in the area. Part two focuses on decontamination practices in hospitals and healthcare. It considers the role of the nurse in decontamination, the issues of microbial biofilm in waterlines, control of waterborne microorganisms, and the use of gaseous decontamination technologies. Further chapters explore decontamination of prions, the use of protective clothing, no-touch automated room disinfection systems, and controlling the presence of microorganisms in hospitals. Part three discusses practices for decontamination and sterilization of surgical instruments and endoscopes. These chapters examine a range of guidance documents, including the choice framework for local policy and procedures for decontamination of surgical instruments, as well as novel technologies for cleaning and detection of contamination. Decontamination in Hospitals and Healthcare provides a reference source on decontamination for public health professionals and students concerned with healthcare. It is particularly useful for scientists in microbiology and disinfection/decontamination laboratories, healthcare workers who use disinfectants, students in microbiology, clinicians, members of the Institute of Decontamination Sciences/Central Sterilising Club, and those employed in the Central Sterile Services departments of healthcare facilities.
    Decontamination in Hospitals and Healthcare, Edited by Walker JT, 01/2014: chapter A guide to 'no-touch' automated room disinfection systems; Woodhead Publishing., ISBN: 9780857096692
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Central line (CL)-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) are an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality. Novel strategies to prevent CLABSI are needed. We described a quasiexperimental study to examine the effect of the presence of a unit-based quality nurse (UQN) dedicated to perform patient safety and infection control activities with a focus on CLABSI prevention in a surgical intensive care unit (SICU). From July 2008 to March 2012, there were 3,257 SICU admissions; CL utilization ratio was 0.74 (18,193 CL-days/24,576 patient-days). The UQN program began in July 2010; the nurse was present for 30% (193/518) of the days of the intervention period of July 2010 to March 2012. The average CLABSI rate was 5.0 per 1,000 CL-days before the intervention and 1.5 after the intervention and decreased by 5.1% (P = .005) for each additional 1% of days of the month that the UQN was present, even after adjusting for CLABSI rates in other adult intensive care units, time, severity of illness, and Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program participation (5.1%, P = .004). Approximately 11.4 CLABSIs were prevented. The presence of a UQN dedicated to perform infection control activities may be an effective strategy for CLABSI reduction.
    American journal of infection control 12/2013; 42(2). DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2013.08.006 · 3.01 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 17, 2014