Evaluating intervention strategies in controlling coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread in care homes: An agent-based model.

BACKGROUND: Care homes are vulnerable to widespread transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with poor outcomes for staff and residents. Infection control interventions in care homes need to not only be effective in containing the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but also feasible to implement in this special setting which is both a healthcare institution and a home. METHODS: We developed an agent-based model that simulates the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 via contacts between individuals, including residents, staff members, and visitors in a care home setting. We explored a representative care home in Scotland in our base case and explore other care home setups in an uncertainty analysis. We evaluated the effectiveness of a range of intervention strategies in controlling the spread of COVID-19. RESULTS: In the presence of the reference interventions that have been implemented in many care homes, including testing of new admissions, isolation of symptomatic residents, and restricted public visiting, routine testing of staff appears to be the most effective and practical approach. Routine testing of residents is no more effective as a reference strategy while routine testing of both staff and residents only shows a negligible additive effect. Modeling results are very sensitive to transmission probability per contact, but the qualitative finding is robust to varying parameter values in our uncertainty analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our model predictions suggest that routine testing should target staff in care homes in conjunction with adherence to strict hand hygiene and using personal protective equipment to reduce risk of transmission per contact.

Cost comparison of orthopaedic fracture pathways using discrete event simulation in a Glasgow hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare faces the continual challenge of improving outcome while aiming to reduce cost. The aim of this study was to determine the micro cost differences of the Glasgow non-operative trauma virtual pathway in comparison to a traditional pathway. DESIGN: Discrete event simulation was used to model and analyse cost and resource utilisation with an activity-based costing approach. Data for a full comparison before the process change was unavailable so we used a modelling approach, comparing a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) with a simulated traditional fracture clinic (TFC). SETTING: The orthopaedic unit VFC pathway pioneered at Glasgow Royal Infirmary has attracted significant attention and interest and is the focus of this cost study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Our study focused exclusively on patients with non-operative trauma attending emergency department or the minor injuries unit and the subsequent step in the patient pathway. Retrospective studies of patient outcomes as a result of the protocol introductions for specific injuries are presented in association with activity costs from the models. RESULTS: Patients are satisfied with the new pathway, the information provided and the outcome of their injuries (Evidence Level IV). There was a 65% reduction in the number of first outpatient face-to-face (f2f) attendances in orthopaedics. In the VFC pathway, the resources required per day were significantly lower for all staff groups (p≤0.001). The overall cost per patient of the VFC pathway was £22.84 (95% CI 21.74 to 23.92) per patient compared with £36.81 (95% CI 35.65 to 37.97) for the TFC pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Our results give a clearer picture of the cost comparison of the virtual pathway over a wholly traditional f2f clinic system. The use of simulation-based stochastic costings in healthcare economic analysis has been limited to date, but this study provides evidence for adoption of this method as a basis for its application in other healthcare settings.