Family-based Helicobacter pylori infection control and management strategy and screen-and-treat strategy are highly cost-effective in preventing multiple upper gastrointestinal diseases in Chinese population at national level.

BACKGROUND: The overall benefits of the newly introduced family-based Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection control and management (FBCM) and screen-and-treat strategies in preventing multiple upper gastrointestinal diseases at national level in China have not been explored. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of these strategies in the whole Chinese population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision trees and Markov models of H. pylori infection-related non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD), peptic ulcer disease (PUD), and gastric cancer (GC) were developed to simulate the cost-effectiveness of these strategies in the whole 494 million households in China. The main outcomes include cost-effectiveness, life years (LY), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: When compared with no-screen strategy, both FBCM and screen-and-treat strategies reduced the number of new cases of NUD, PUD, PUD-related deaths, and the prevalence of GC, and cancer-related deaths. The costs saved by these two strategies were $1467 million and $879 million, quality-adjusted life years gained were 227 million and 267 million, and life years gained were 59 million and 69 million, respectively. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that FBCM strategy costs -$6.46/QALY and -$24.75/LY, and screen-and-treat strategy costs -$3.3/QALY and -$12.71/LY when compared with no-screen strategy. Compared to the FBCM strategy, the screen-and-treat strategy reduced the incidence of H. pylori-related diseases, added 40 million QALYs, and saved 10 million LYs, but at the increased cost of $588 million. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that screen-and-treat strategy costs $14.88/QALY and $59.5/LY when compared with FBCM strategy. The robustness of the results was also verified. CONCLUSIONS: Both FBCM and screen-and-treat strategies are highly cost-effective in preventing NUD, PUD, and GC than the no-screen strategy in Chinese families at national level. As FBCM strategy is more practical and efficient, it is expected to play a more important role in preventing familial H. pylori infection and also serves as an excellent reference for other highly infected societies.

Cost Analysis of a Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy in Long-Term Care Facilities.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the costs of a successful tailored multifaceted strategy to improve hand hygiene compliance outweighed the savings by reducing infection costs in Dutch long-term care facilities (LTCFs). DESIGN: A retrospective cost analysis alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 14 LTCFs (23 wards) in the Netherlands. METHODS: The cost analysis was based on the costs of the intervention vs the savings from avoided infections and associated treatment costs. Infection-related costs of the "usual-care" period were compared with the combined infection-related costs and intervention costs from the "intervention" period and the costs in the "post-intervention period." Multilevel analyses, with a linear model with periods as fixed effects, random effects for cluster LTCFs, and fixed effects for each step, were completed. RESULTS: There are no significant differences in total costs considering the 3 periods. When adjusting for time and clustering, the mean infection-related costs per week per LTCF for all the infections combined were highest during "usual-care" before the hand hygiene intervention was performed, namely 680 euros per week. Assuming the effect of the improvement strategy would be present for 12 months, the costs per week in the "intervention" and "post-intervention" periods were 627 euros (95% CI, 383-871) and 731 euros (95% CI, 508-954), respectively. Assuming the effect of the improvement strategy will last longer than 1 year (ie, 18 and 24 months), the average cost for the "intervention period" and the "post-intervention" period decreased to 615 euros and 719 euros during the intervention and 609 euros and 715 euros after the intervention, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our multifaceted hand hygiene improvement strategy achieves cost savings. The results of our study are the first of an economic analysis of a hand hygiene improvement strategy in LTCFs. The results need to be confirmed by further economic evaluations.

Modeling relaxed policies for discontinuation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus contact precautions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic costs of reducing the University of Virginia Hospital's present "3-negative" policy, which continues methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) contact precautions until patients receive 3 consecutive negative test results, to either 2 or 1 negative. DESIGN: Cost-effective analysis. SETTINGS: The University of Virginia Hospital. PATIENTS: The study included data from 41,216 patients from 2015 to 2019. METHODS: We developed a model for MRSA transmission in the University of Virginia Hospital, accounting for both environmental contamination and interactions between patients and providers, which were derived from electronic health record (EHR) data. The model was fit to MRSA incidence over the study period under the current 3-negative clearance policy. A counterfactual simulation was used to estimate outcomes and costs for 2- and 1-negative policies compared with the current 3-negative policy. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that 2-negative and 1-negative policies would have led to 6 (95% CI, -30 to 44; P < .001) and 17 (95% CI, -23 to 59; -10.1% to 25.8%; P < .001) more MRSA cases, respectively, at the hospital over the study period. Overall, the 1-negative policy has statistically significantly lower costs ($628,452; 95% CI, $513,592-$752,148) annually (P < .001) in US dollars, inflation-adjusted for 2023) than the 2-negative policy ($687,946; 95% CI, $562,522-$812,662) and 3-negative ($702,823; 95% CI, $577,277-$846,605). CONCLUSIONS: A single negative MRSA nares PCR test may provide sufficient evidence to discontinue MRSA contact precautions, and it may be the most cost-effective option.

A narrative review on current duodenoscope reprocessing techniques and novel developments.

Duodenoscopy-associated infections occur worldwide despite strict adherence to reprocessing standards. The exact scope of the problem remains unknown because a standardized sampling protocol and uniform sampling techniques are lacking. The currently available multi-society protocol for microbial culturing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Society for Microbiology, published in 2018 is too laborious for broad clinical implementation. A more practical sampling protocol would result in increased accessibility and widespread implementation. This will aid to reduce the prevalence of duodenoscope contamination. To reduce the risk of duodenoscopy-associated pathogen transmission the FDA advised four supplemental reprocessing measures. These measures include double high-level disinfection, microbiological culturing and quarantine, ethylene oxide gas sterilization and liquid chemical sterilization. When the supplemental measures were advised in 2015 data evaluating their efficacy were sparse. Over the past five years data regarding the supplemental measures have become available that place the efficacy of the supplemental measures into context. As expected the advised supplemental measures have resulted in increased costs and reprocessing time. Unfortunately, it has also become clear that the efficacy of the supplemental measures falls short and that duodenoscope contamination remains a problem. There is a lot of research into new reprocessing methods and technical applications trying to solve the problem of duodenoscope contamination. Several promising developments such as single-use duodenoscopes, electrolyzed acidic water, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide plasma are already applied in a clinical setting.

BJS commission on surgery and perioperative care post-COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 and global surgical practice was compromised. This Commission aimed to document and reflect on the changes seen in the surgical environment during the pandemic, by reviewing colleagues' experiences and published evidence. METHODS: In late 2020, BJS contacted colleagues across the global surgical community and asked them to describe how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had affected their practice. In addition to this, the Commission undertook a literature review on the impact of COVID-19 on surgery and perioperative care. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the issues most frequently encountered by the correspondents, as well as the solutions and ideas suggested to address them. RESULTS: BJS received communications for this Commission from leading clinicians and academics across a variety of surgical specialties in every inhabited continent. The responses from all over the world provided insights into multiple facets of surgical practice from a governmental level to individual clinical practice and training. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered a variety of problems in healthcare systems, including negative impacts on surgical practice. Global surgical multidisciplinary teams are working collaboratively to address research questions about the future of surgery in the post-COVID-19 era. The COVID-19 pandemic is severely damaging surgical training. The establishment of a multidisciplinary ethics committee should be encouraged at all surgical oncology centres. Innovative leadership and collaboration is vital in the post-COVID-19 era.

A pre-pandemic COVID-19 assessment of the costs of prevention and control interventions for healthcare associated infections in medical and surgical wards in Québec.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) present a major public health problem that significantly affects patients, health care providers and the entire healthcare system. Infection prevention and control programs limit HCAIs and are an indispensable component of patient and healthcare worker safety. The clinical best practices (CBPs) of handwashing, screening, hygiene and sanitation of surfaces and equipment, and basic and additional precautions (e.g., isolation, and donning and removing personal protective equipment) are keystones of infection prevention and control (IPC). There is a lack of rigorous IPC economic evaluations demonstrating the cost-benefit of IPC programs in general, and a lack of assessment of the value of investing in CBPs more specifically. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess overall costs associated with each of the four CBPs. METHODS: Across two Quebec hospitals, 48 healthcare workers were observed for two hours each shift, for two consecutive weeks. A modified time-driven activity-based costing framework method was used to capture all human resources (time) and materials (e.g. masks, cloths, disinfectants) required for each clinical best practice. Using a hospital perspective with a time horizon of one year, median costs per CBP per hour, as well as the cost per action, were calculated and reported in 2018 Canadian dollars ($). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1831 actions were recorded. The median cost of hand hygiene (N = 867) was 20 cents per action. For cleaning and disinfection of surfaces (N = 102), the cost was 21 cents per action, while cleaning of small equipment (N = 85) was 25 cents per action. Additional precautions median cost was $4.1 per action. The donning or removing or personal protective equipment (N = 720) cost was 76 cents per action. Finally, the total median costs for the five categories of clinical best practiced assessed were 27 cents per action. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of clinical best practices were low, from 20 cents to $4.1 per action. This study provides evidence based arguments with which to support the allocation of resources to infection prevention and control practices that directly affect the safety of patients, healthcare workers and the public. Further research of costing clinical best care practices is warranted.

Effective vaccine allocation strategies, balancing economy with infection control against COVID-19 in Japan.

Due to COVID-19, many countries including Japan have implemented a suspension of economic activities for infection control. It has contributed to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 but caused severe economic losses. Today, several promising vaccines have been developed and are already being distributed in some countries. Therefore, we evaluated various vaccine and intensive countermeasure strategies with constraint of economic loss using SEIR model to obtain knowledge of how to balance economy with infection control in Japan. Our main results were that the vaccination strategy that prioritized younger generation was better in terms of deaths when a linear relationship between lockdown intensity and acceptable economic loss was assumed. On the other hand, when a non-linearity relationship was introduced, implying that the strong lockdown with small economic loss was possible, the old first strategies were best in the settings of small basic reproduction number. These results indicated a high potential of remote work when prioritizing vaccination for the old generation. When focusing on only the old first strategies as the Japanese government has decided to do, the strategy vaccinating the young next to the old was superior to the others when a non-linear relationship was assumed due to sufficient reduction of contact with small economic loss.

Strategies for Effective Infection Prevention Programs: Structures, Processes, and Funding.

Successful Infection Prevention Programs (IPPs) consist of a multidisciplinary team led by a hospital epidemiologist and managed by infection preventionists. Knowledge of the economics of health care-associated infections (HAIs) and the ability to make a business plan is now essential to the success of programs. Prevention of HAIs is the core function of IPPs with impact on patient outcomes, quality of care, and cost savings for hospitals. This article discusses the structure and responsibilities of an IPP, the regulatory pressures and opportunities that these programs face, and how to build and manage a successful program.

Household Disinfection Interventions to Prevent Cholera Transmission: Facilitators, Barriers, Training, and Evidence Needs.

There are two common household disinfection interventions to prevent interhousehold transmission of cholera: household spraying, whereby a team disinfects cholera patients' households, and household disinfection kits (HDKs), whereby cleaning materials are provided to cholera patients' family members. Currently, both interventions lack evidence, and international agencies recommend HDK distribution; however, household spraying remains widely implemented. To understand this disconnect, we conducted 14 key informant interviews with international and national responders and a study in Haiti assessing HDK efficacy using two training modules including 20 household surveys and 327 surfaces samples before and after cleaning. During interviews, 80% of the international-level informants discussed evidence gaps for both interventions, and 60% preferred HDKs. Conversely, no national-level informants knew what an HDK was; therefore, they all preferred spraying. Informants discussed behavior changes, bleach perceptions, and implementation as facilitators and/or barriers to implementing both interventions. In households, training with demonstrations regarding the use of HDK led to increased reductions of Escherichia coli (P < 0.001) and Vibrio spp. (P < 0.001) on surfaces after participants cleaned the household compared with a hygiene promotion session only. These results emphasize the gap between the current international-level policy and the realities of cholera response programs, highlight the need for evidence to align household disinfection recommendations, and underscore the importance of the dissemination and training of responders and affected populations regarding methods to prevent intrahousehold cholera transmission.

Prioritizing investments in rapid response vaccine technologies for emerging infections: A portfolio decision analysis.

This study reports on the application of a Portfolio Decision Analysis (PDA) to support investment decisions of a non-profit funder of vaccine technology platform development for rapid response to emerging infections. A value framework was constructed via document reviews and stakeholder consultations. Probability of Success (PoS) data was obtained for 16 platform projects through expert assessments and stakeholder portfolio preferences via a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). The structure of preferences and the uncertainties in project PoS suggested a non-linear, stochastic value maximization problem. A simulation-optimization algorithm was employed, identifying optimal portfolios under different budget constraints. Stochastic dominance of the optimization solution was tested via mean-variance and mean-Gini statistics, and its robustness via rank probability analysis in a Monte Carlo simulation. Project PoS estimates were low and substantially overlapping. The DCE identified decreasing rates of return to investing in single platform types. Optimal portfolio solutions reflected this non-linearity of platform preferences along an efficiency frontier and diverged from a model simply ranking projects by PoS-to-Cost, despite significant revisions to project PoS estimates during the review process in relation to the conduct of the DCE. Large confidence intervals associated with optimization solutions suggested significant uncertainty in portfolio valuations. Mean-variance and Mean-Gini tests suggested optimal portfolios with higher expected values were also accompanied by higher risks of not achieving those values despite stochastic dominance of the optimal portfolio solution under the decision maker's budget constraint. This portfolio was also the highest ranked portfolio in the simulation; though having only a 54% probability of being preferred to the second-ranked portfolio. The analysis illustrates how optimization modelling can help health R&D decision makers identify optimal portfolios in the face of significant decision uncertainty involving portfolio trade-offs. However, in light of such extreme uncertainty, further due diligence and ongoing updating of performance is needed on highly risky projects as well as data on decision makers' portfolio risk attitude before PDA can conclude about optimal and robust solutions.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Allowing Additional Time in Cleaning Hospital Contact Precautions Rooms.

Increasing cleaning time may reduce hospital-acquired transmission of Clostridioides difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE). We constructed a cost-benefit model to estimate the impact of implementing an enhanced cleaning protocol, allowing hospital housekeepers an additional 15 minutes to terminally clean contact precautions rooms. The enhanced cleaning protocol saved the hospital $758 per terminally-cleaned room when accounting for only C. difficile. Scaling up to a hospital with 100 cases of C. difficile/year, and the US annual C. difficile incidence, cost savings were $75,832/year and $169.8 million/year, respectively. These results may inform infection control strategic decision-making and resource allocation.

The aftermath of SARS-CoV-2 in NICU: saving or checking accounts? Projected cost-effectiveness analysis.

In the aftermath of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we revised the cost-effectiveness of the exploited interventions in neonatal intensive care unit, to redefine future strategies for hospital management. Costs were revised with respect to the lockdown R0 or under different R0 scenarios to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the screening program adopted. Weekly nasopharyngeal swabs for parents, neonates, and personnel were the major cost during the pandemic, although they effectively reduced the number of cases in our unit.Conclusion: Parents and healthcare personnel testing appears to be an effective strategy due to the high number of contact they have within the hospital environment and outside, able to minimize the cases within our unit. What is Known: • Costs of universal COVID-19 tests for parents, neonates, and NICU personnel have not been evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic in neonatal intensive care unit in Europe. What is New: • Weekly nasopharyngeal swabs for parents, neonates, and personnel were the major cost during the COVID-19 pandemic in NICU. • Parents and healthcare personnel testing was effective to reduce costs related to COVID-19 due to the high number of contact they have within the hospital environment and outside.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention strategies including pre-endoscopic virus testing and use of high risk personal protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: Infection prevention strategies to protect healthcare workers in endoscopy units during the post-peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic are currently under intense discussion. In this paper, the cost-effectiveness of routine pre-endoscopy testing and high risk personal protective equipment (PPE) is addressed. METHOD: A model based on theoretical assumptions of 10 000 asymptomatic patients presenting to a high volume center was created. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and absolute costs per endoscopy were calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: ICER values for universal testing decreased with increasing prevalence rates. For higher prevalence rates (≥ 1 %), ICER values were lowest for routine pre-endoscopy testing coupled with use of high risk PPE, while cost per endoscopy was lowest for routine use of high risk PPE without universal testing. CONCLUSION: In general, routine pre-endoscopy testing combined with high risk PPE becomes more cost-effective with rising prevalence rates of COVID-19.

Management practices for leaders to promote infection prevention: Lessons from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is critical to reduce preventable deaths and healthcare costs. Variable success with HAI prevention efforts has suggested that management practices are critical to support clinical infection prevention practices. This study examined hospital leaders' management practices around the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) to identify actions that leaders can take to promote HAI prevention efforts. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 420 key informants, including managers and frontline staff, in 18 hospitals across the United States. Interviewees were asked about management practices supporting HAI prevention. We analyzed interview transcripts using rigorous qualitative methods to understand how management practices were operationalized in infection prevention efforts. RESULTS: Across hospitals and interviewees, three management practices were characterized as important facilitators of HAI prevention: (1) engagement of executive leadership; (2) information sharing; and (3) manager coaching. We found that visible executive leadership, efficient communication, and frequent opportunities to provide and promote learning from feedback were perceived to promote and sustain HAI prevention efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide insight into management practices for leaders that support successful HAI prevention. In practice, these tactics may need to be adjusted to accommodate the current restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to maintain HAI prevention efforts as a priority.

The daily direct costs of isolating patients identified with highly resistant micro-organisms in a non-outbreak setting.

BACKGROUND: Isolation precautions are recommended when caring for patients identified with highly resistant micro-organisms (HRMOs). However, the direct costs of patients in isolation are largely unknown. AIM: To obtain detailed information on the daily direct costs associated with isolating patients identified with HRMOs. METHODS: This study was performed from November until December 2017 on a 12-bed surgical ward. This ward contained solely isolation rooms with anterooms. The daily direct costs of isolation were based on three cost items: (1) additional personal protective equipment (PPE), measured by counting the consumption of empty packaging materials; (2) cleaning and disinfection of the isolation room, based on the costs of an outsourced cleaning company; and (3) additional workload for healthcare workers, based on literature and multiplied by the average gross hourly salary of nurses. A distinction was made between the costs for strict isolation, contact-plus isolation, and contact isolation. FINDINGS: During the study period, 26 patients were nursed in isolation because of HRMO carriage. Time for donning and doffing of PPE was 31 min per day. The average daily direct costs of isolation were the least expensive for contact isolation (gown, gloves), €28/$31, and the most expensive for strict isolation (surgical mask, gloves, gown, cap), €41/$47. CONCLUSION: Using a novel, easy method to estimate consumption of PPE, we conclude that the daily direct costs of isolating a patient differ per type of isolation. Insight into the direct costs of isolation is of utmost importance when developing or updating infection prevention policies.

COVID-19 Solutions Are Climate Solutions: Lessons From Reusable Gowns.

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the inadequacy of the U.S. healthcare system to deliver timely and resilient care. According to the American Hospital Association, the pandemic has created a $202 billion loss across the healthcare industry, forcing health care systems to lay off workers and making hospitals scramble to minimize supply chain costs. However, as the demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) grows, hospitals have sacrificed sustainable solutions for disposable options that, although convenient, will exacerbate supply strains, financial burden, and waste. We advocate for reusable gowns as a means to lower health care costs, address climate change, and improve resilience while preserving the safety of health care workers. Reusable gowns' polyester material provides comparable capacity to reduce microbial cross-transmission and liquid penetration. In addition, previous hospitals have reported a 50% cost reduction in gown expenditures after adopting reusable gowns; given the current 2000% price increase in isolation gowns during COVID-19, reusable gown use will build both healthcare resilience and security from price fluctuations. Finally, with the United States' medical waste stream worsening, reusable isolation gowns show promising reductions in energy and water use, solid waste, and carbon footprint. The gowns are shown to withstand laundering 75-100 times in contrast to the single-use disposable gown. The circumstances of the pandemic forewarn the need to shift our single-use PPE practices to standardized reusable applications. Ultimately, sustainable forms of protective equipment can help us prepare for future crises that challenge the resilience of the healthcare system.

The Management of Dental Practices in the Post-COVID 19 Era: An Economic and Operational Perspective.

BACKGROUND: In order to protect dental teams and their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, dentists have had to adopt several measures (operating and post-operating procedures) which may increase the total treatment time and costs relating to individual protective measures. This paper will propose a thorough analysis of operating dentistry procedures, comparing the economic performance of the activity in a dental surgery before and after the adoption of these protective measures, which are required to contain the risk of SARS-COV-2 infections. METHODS: The economic analysis is articulated in three approaches. Firstly, it assesses a reduction in markup by maintaining current charges (A); alternatively, it suggests revised charges to adopt in order to maintain unvaried levels of markup (B). And the third Approach (C) examines available dental treatments, highlighting how to profitably combine treatment volumes to reduce markup loss or a restricted increase in dental charges. RESULTS: Maintaining dental charges could cause a loss in markup, even rising to 200% (A); attempting to maintain unvaried levels of markup will result in an increase in dental charges, even at 100% (B); and varying the volumes of the single dental treatments on offer (increasing those which current research indicates as the most profitable) could mitigate the economic impact of the measures to prevent the transmission of SARS-COV-2 (C). CONCLUSIONS: The authors of this paper provide managerial insights which can assist the dentist-entrepreneur to become aware of the boundaries of the economic consequences of governmental measures in containing the virus infection.