IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0159667.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Analysis of Universal Screening vs. Risk Factor-Based Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

Author

Listed:
  • Virginia R Roth
  • Tara Longpre
  • Doug Coyle
  • Kathryn N Suh
  • Monica Taljaard
  • Katherine A Muldoon
  • Karamchand Ramotar
  • Alan Forster

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. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrated that a universal MRSA screening program was costly from a hospital perspective and was previously known to not be clinically effective at reducing MRSA transmission. These results may be useful to inform future model-based economic analyses of MRSA interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Virginia R Roth & Tara Longpre & Doug Coyle & Kathryn N Suh & Monica Taljaard & Katherine A Muldoon & Karamchand Ramotar & Alan Forster, 2016. "Cost Analysis of Universal Screening vs. Risk Factor-Based Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0159667
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159667
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159667&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0159667?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gijs Hubben & Martin Bootsma & Michiel Luteijn & Diarmuid Glynn & David Bishai & Marc Bonten & Maarten Postma, 2011. "Modelling the Costs and Effects of Selective and Universal Hospital Admission Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-11, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher Fuller & Julie Robotham & Joanne Savage & Susan Hopkins & Sarah R Deeny & Sheldon Stone & Barry Cookson, 2013. "The National One Week Prevalence Audit of Universal Meticillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Admission Screening 2012," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-1, September.
    2. Sierk D. Marbus & Valentijn A. Schweitzer & Geert H. Groeneveld & Jan J. Oosterheert & Peter M. Schneeberger & Wim Hoek & Jaap T. Dissel & Arianne B. Gageldonk-Lafeber & Marie-Josée Mangen, 2020. "Incidence and costs of hospitalized adult influenza patients in The Netherlands: a retrospective observational study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 775-785, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0159667. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.