To save content items to your account,
please 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 account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
To determine whether assignment to a multiple-bed room increased the risk of hospital-onset C. difficile diarrhea (HO-CDI).
San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center.
Adult general medical and surgical inpatients.
Consecutive cases of HO-CDI were identified between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015. To investigate the effect of multiple-bed room exposure both at admission and at the time of symptom onset, 2 sets of controls were selected from the general medical/surgical inpatient population using incidence density sampling. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the relationship between room assignment (single bed vs multiple beds) and the development of HO-CDI.
In total, 187 cases were identified and matched with 512 and 515 controls for the admission and at-diagnosis analyses, respectively. The adjusted rate ratio (RR) associated with the development HO-CDI associated with multiple-bed room exposure during the 7 and 14 days immediately prior to HO-CDI diagnosis were 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93–1.25; P=.31) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93–1.18; P=.12), respectively. Furthermore, no significant association was detected in the analysis of the first 7 and 14 days after case admission or among patients with Charlson comorbidity scores ≥4 in either period.
Assignment of patients to multiple-bed rooms on general medical and surgical wards was not associated with an increased risk in the development of HO-CDI. Future investigation should be performed with larger cohorts in multiple sites to more definitively address the question because this issue could have implications for patient room assignment and hospital design.
Staphylococcus aureus is the most common cause of healthcare-associated infections. Intranasal mupirocin treatment probably decreases S. aureus infections among colonized surgical patients. Using cost-effectiveness analysis, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of preoperative use of mupirocin for the prevention of healthcare-associated S. aureus infections.
Three strategies were compared: (1) screen with nasal culture and give treatment to carriers, (2) give treatment to all patients without screening, and (3) neither screen nor treat. A societal perspective was taken. Adverse outcomes included bloodstream infection, pneumonia, surgical site infection, death due to underlying illness or infection, readmission, and the need for home health care. Data inputs were obtained from an extensive MEDLINE review and from publicly available government data sources. The following base-case data inputs (and ranges) for sensitivity analysis were used: rate of S. aureus carriage, 23.1% (19%-55%); efficacy ofmupirocin treatment, 51% (8%-75%); mupirocin treatment cost, $48.36 ($24.18-$57.74); and hospital costs of bloodstream infection, $25,128 ($6,194-$40,211), pneumonia, $18,366 ($5,574-$28,952), and surgical site infection $16,256 ($5,119-$22,553). Widespread use ofmupirocin has been associated with high levels of mupirocin resistance; therefore, a broad range of estimates for efficacy was tested in the sensitivity analysis.
The target population included patients undergoing nonemergent surgery requiring postoperative hospitalization.
Both the screen-and-treat and treat-all strategies were cost saving, saving $102 per patient screened and $88 per patient treated, respectively. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, the model was robust with respect to all data inputs except for the efficacy ofmupirocin treatment. If the efficacy is less than 16.1%, then the screen-and-treat strategy is cost incurring. A treat-all strategy was more cost saving if the rate of S. aureus carriage was greater than 42.7%, the mupirocin cost was less than $29.87, or nursing compensation was greater than $64.21 per hour.
Administration of mupirocin before surgery is cost saving, primarily because healthcare-associated infections are very expensive. The level of mupirocin efficacy is critical to the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.