Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://buratest.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/14833
Title: Cost Analysis of Universal Screening vs. Risk Factor-Based Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
Authors: Roth, VR
Longpre, T
Coyle, D
Suh, KN
Taljaard, M
Muldoon, KA
Ramotar, K
Forster, A
Keywords: Science & Technology;Multidisciplinary Sciences;Science & Technology - Other Topics;NOSOCOMIAL TRANSMISSION;DECISION-ANALYSIS;ADMISSION;INFECTION;CARRIAGE;MULTICENTER;PERSPECTIVE;STRATEGIES;CARRIERS;SURGERY
Issue Date: 2016
Publisher: PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
Citation: PLOS ONE, 2016
Abstract: Background The literature remains conflicted regarding the most effective way to screen for MRSA. This study was designed to assess costs associated with universal versus risk factor-based screening for the reduction of nosocomial MRSA transmission. Methods The study was conducted at The Ottawa Hospital, a large multi-centre tertiary care facility with approximately 47,000 admissions annually. From January 2006-December 2007, patients underwent risk factor-based screening for MRSA on admission. From January 2008 to August 2009 universal MRSA screening was implemented. A comparison of costs incurred during risk factor-based screening and universal screening was conducted. The model incorporated probabilities relating to the likelihood of being tested and the results of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing with associated effects in terms of MRSA bacteremia and true positive and negative test results. Inputted costs included laboratory testing, contact precautions and infection control, private room costs, housekeeping, and length of hospital stay. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results The risk factor-based MRSA screening program screened approximately 30% of admitted patients and cost the hospital over $780 000 annually. The universal screening program screened approximately 83% of admitted patients and cost over $1.94 million dollars, representing an excess cost of $1.16 million per year. The estimated additional cost per patient screened was $17.76.
URI: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/14833
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159667
ISSN: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000381515900045&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=f12c8c83318cf2733e615e54d9ed7ad5
ARTN e0159667
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000381515900045&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=f12c8c83318cf2733e615e54d9ed7ad5
ARTN e0159667
1932-6203
Appears in Collections:Dept of Clinical Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf451.37 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.