Economic evaluation of healthcare-associated infection prevention and control in long-term care: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Given the high risk of contracting a healthcare-associated infection in long-term care facilities, infection prevention and control are essential for the quality of care and safety of residents and staff. To develop more effective infection prevention and control interventions in long-term care facilities, it is important to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of existing interventions. There are only a few reviews on this subject, but these are not recent and most do not perform an economic evaluation. Moreover, none uses a discounting approach which limits inter-study comparison. To address these gaps, we will conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations related to healthcare-associated infection prevention and control in long-term care facilities using a discounting approach. METHODS: We will query MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL, EconLit, JSTOR, and Scopus, as well as the gray literature databases CORDIS and ProQuest. We will include quantitative studies that evaluate four clinical best practices associated with infection prevention and control (hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening, basic, and additional precautions) and use at least one of five economic analyses (cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimization, cost-utility, cost-consequences). Primary outcomes will include net cost savings, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year, and incremental cost per disability-adjusted life year. Two co-authors will independently screen and select articles, extract data, and assess the quality of selected articles using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria, the Economic Evaluation criteria, and the Cochrane criteria for economic evaluation. Extracted data will be synthesized, and values will be adjusted to 2022 Canadian dollars using the discount rates of 3%, 5%, and 8%. DISCUSSION: Information obtained through this systematic review may help researchers and policy makers make more efficient use of limited healthcare resources to ensure the safety and quality of long-term care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Research registry ID: reviewregistry1210.

Identifying performance factors of long-term care facilities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic with serious consequences for the residents. Some LTCFs performed better than others, experiencing lower case and death rates due to COVID-19. A comprehensive understanding of the factors that have affected the transmission of COVID-19 in LTCFs is lacking, as no published studies have applied a multidimensional conceptual framework to evaluate the performance of LTCFs during the pandemic. Much research has focused on infection prevention and control strategies or specific disease outcomes (e.g., death rates). To address these gaps, our scoping review will identify and analyze the performance factors that have influenced the management of COVID-19 in LTCFs by adopting a multidimensional conceptual framework. METHODS: We will query the CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), CAIRN, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases for peer-reviewed articles written in English or French and published between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. We will include articles that focus on the specified context (COVID-19), population (LTCFs), interest (facilitators and barriers to performance of LTCFs), and outcomes (dimensions of performance according to a modified version of the Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec conceptual framework). Each article will be screened by at least two co-authors independently followed by data extraction of the included articles by one co-author and a review by the principal investigator. RESULTS: We will present the results both narratively and with visual aids (e.g., flowcharts, tables, conceptual maps). DISCUSSION: Our scoping review will provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that have affected the performance of LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This knowledge can help inform the development of more effective infection prevention and control measures for future pandemics and outbreaks. The results of our review may lead to improvements in the care and safety of LTCF residents and staff. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Research Registry researchregistry7026.

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.

Positive deviance and hand hygiene of nurses in a Quebec hospital: What can we learn from the best?

BACKGROUND: Although it is well known that hand hygiene is the most effective measure to prevent health care-associated infections, hand hygiene adherence is low in Quebec, as it is elsewhere. For this study, an innovative framework was used to explore the clinical practice of nurses regarding hand hygiene and the factors that influence it: positive deviance, or the idea that there are people who find better solutions to problems than their peers. This study investigated positive deviance at the level of the care team to shed light on group dynamics. METHODS: We conducted focused ethnographies on 2 care units-a medical-surgery unit and a palliative care unit-at a Montreal university hospital. Data collection consisted mainly of systematic observations and individual interviews with nurses. RESULTS: The results show that positive deviance related to hand hygiene is instigated by social cohesion within a care team, created, in this study, by the mobilizing leadership of the head nurse in the medical-surgery unit and the prevailing humanist philosophy in the palliative care unit. CONCLUSIONS: In health care, it can be useful to apply the positive deviance approach to care teams instead of individuals to better understand the ideologic and structural differences linked to better hand hygiene performance by the nurses.

[Positive deviance: concept analysis using the evolutionary approach of Rodgers]. / La deviance positive: analyse de concept selon l'approche évolutionniste de Rodgers.

Positive deviance is a relatively new concept in healthcare. Since 2006, it has been applied to infection control in order to increase the awareness to good hand hygiene practices. This article focus on presenting analytical results of this concept using the evolutionary approach of Rodgers based on the philosophical postulate that concepts are dynamical and changing with time. For doing so, a census of the writings in nursing, medicine and psychology was carried out. By going through the CINAHL, Medline and PsyclNFO databases using positive deviance as a keyword for the time period: 1975 to May 2012, and in accordance with the method of Rodgers, ninety articles were retained (30 per discipline). The analysis enables one to notice that positive deviance described as an individual characteristic at first, is now used as a behavioral changing approach in nursing and medicine as well. At the end of the analysis and apart from this article, positive deviance will be used in order to study the practice of nurses that adheres to hand hygiene despite limiting constraints within hospital. We will then be able to continue the development of this concept in order to bring it, as Rodgers recommends, beyond the analysis. It would then be an important contribution to good nursing practices in the field of infection control and prevention.

Community-acquired Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, Montréal, 2005-2006: frequency estimates and their validity.

A retrospective search for community-acquired Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in 15 hospitals revealed important discrepancies with numbers for the same period reported in real time to the surveillance system. Several of the observed problems could be solved by implementing case-by-case notification with subsequent investigation by local public health, as for other reportable diseases.