Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Response to McKinnell et al’s Original Article “Cost-Benefit Analysis From the Hospital Perspective of Universal Active Screening Followed by Contact Precautions for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Carriers”

  • Mary Teresa O’Riordan (a1), Patricia Harrington (a2), Kathleen Mac Lellen (a1), Máirín Ryan (a2) (a3) and Hilary Humphreys (a4) (a5)...
  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Response to McKinnell et al’s Original Article “Cost-Benefit Analysis From the Hospital Perspective of Universal Active Screening Followed by Contact Precautions for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Carriers”
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Response to McKinnell et al’s Original Article “Cost-Benefit Analysis From the Hospital Perspective of Universal Active Screening Followed by Contact Precautions for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Carriers”
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Response to McKinnell et al’s Original Article “Cost-Benefit Analysis From the Hospital Perspective of Universal Active Screening Followed by Contact Precautions for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Carriers”
      Available formats
      ×

Abstract

Copyright

Corresponding author

Address correspondence to Mary O’Riordan, MB, BAO, BcH, MRCPUK, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Department of Health, Hawkins House, Hawkins Street, Dublin 2, Ireland (Mary_oriordan@health.gov.ie).

References

Hide All
1. McKinnell, JA, Bartsch, SM, Lee, BY, Huang, SS, Miller, LG. Cost-benefit analysis from the hospital perspective of universal active screening followed by contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:213.
2. National Clinical Effectiveness Committee. Prevention and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): National Clinical Guideline No. 2. 2013. Available at: http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/National-Clinical-Guideline-No.-2-MRSA1.pdf
3. Olchanski, N, Mathews, C, Fusfield, L, Jarvis, W. Assessment of the influence of test characteristics on the clinical and cost impacts of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening programs in US hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:250257.
4. Tubbicke, A, Hubner, C, Flessa, S. Cost comparison of MRSA screening and management–a decision tree analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:438.
5. Collins, J, Raza, M, Ford, M, Gould, FK. Review of a three-year methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening programme. J Hosp Infect 2011;78:8185.
6. Kang, J, Mandsager, P, Biddle, A, Weber, D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of active surveillance screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an academic hospital setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:477486.
7. Leonhardt, K, Yakusheva, O, Costello, M. Clinical effectiveness and cost benefit of universal versus targeted methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening upon admission in hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:797803.
8. Creamer, E, Galvin, S, Humphreys, H, et al. Evaluation of screening risk and nonrisk patients for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on admission in an acute care hospital. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:411415.
9. Rubinovitch, B, Pittet, D. Screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the endemic hospital: what have we learned? J Hosp Infect 2001;47:918.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed