BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that informatics tools, such as automated alert and decision support systems, may increase the efficiency and quality of infection control surveillance. However, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of these tools. METHODS: We focus on 2 types of economic analyses that have utility in assessing infection control interventions (cost-effectiveness analysis and business-case analysis) and review the available literature on the economics of computerized infection control surveillance systems. RESULTS: Previous studies on the effectiveness of computerized infection control surveillance have been limited to assessments of whether these tools increase the sensitivity and specificity of surveillance over traditional methods. Furthermore, we identified only 2 studies that assessed the costs associated with computerized infection control surveillance. Thus, it remains unknown whether computerized infection control surveillance systems are cost-effective and whether use of these systems improves patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: The existing data are insufficient to allow for a summary conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of infection control surveillance technology. All future studies of computerized infection control surveillance systems should aim to collect outcomes and economic data to inform decision making and assist hospitals with completing business-cases analyses.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that informatics tools, such as automated alert and decision support systems, may increase the efficiency and quality of infection control surveillance. However, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of these tools. METHODS: We focus on 2 types of economic analyses that have utility in assessing infection control interventions (cost-effectiveness analysis and business-case analysis) and review the available literature on the economics of computerized infection control surveillance systems. RESULTS: Previous studies on the effectiveness of computerized infection control surveillance have been limited to assessments of whether these tools increase the sensitivity and specificity of surveillance over traditional methods. Furthermore, we identified only 2 studies that assessed the costs associated with computerized infection control surveillance. Thus, it remains unknown whether computerized infection control surveillance systems are cost-effective and whether use of these systems improves patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: The existing data are insufficient to allow for a summary conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of infection control surveillance technology. All future studies of computerized infection control surveillance systems should aim to collect outcomes and economic data to inform decision making and assist hospitals with completing business-cases analyses.
Authors: Annie Chalfine; Daniel Cauet; Wei Chi Lin; Jacqueline Gonot; Nadine Calvo-Verjat; François-Emile Dazza; Olivier Billuart; Marie Dominique Kitzis; Jean Pierre Blériot; Marie Laure Pibarot; Jean Carlet Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Stephen G Weber; Susan S Huang; Shannon Oriola; W Charles Huskins; Gary A Noskin; Kathleen Harriman; Russell N Olmsted; Marc Bonten; Tammy Lundstrom; Michael W Climo; Mary-Claire Roghmann; Cathryn L Murphy; Tobi B Karchmer Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: L Pokorny; A Rovira; M Martín-Baranera; C Gimeno; C Alonso-Tarrés; J Vilarasau Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2006-04-20 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Jon P Furuno; Jessina C McGregor; Anthony D Harris; Judith A Johnson; Jennifer K Johnson; Patricia Langenberg; Richard A Venezia; Joseph Finkelstein; David L Smith; Sandra M Strauss; Eli N Perencevich Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-03-13
Authors: Stephen E Brossette; Donna M Hacek; Patrick J Gavin; Maitry A Kamdar; Kyle D Gadbois; Adrienne G Fisher; Lance R Peterson Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Eli N Perencevich; Patricia W Stone; Sharon B Wright; Yehuda Carmeli; David N Fisman; Sara E Cosgrove Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: R Scott Evans; Rouett H Abouzelof; Caroline W Taylor; Vickie Anderson; Sharon Sumner; Sharon Soutter; Ruth Kleckner; James F Lloyd Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2009-11-14
Authors: Patti G Grota; Patricia W Stone; Sarah Jordan; Monika Pogorzelska; Elaine Larson Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2010-02-21 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Erica S Shenoy; Eric S Rosenthal; Yu-Ping Shao; Siddharth Biswal; Manohar Ghanta; Erin E Ryan; Dolores Suslak; Nancy Swanson; Valdery Moura Junior; David C Hooper; M Brandon Westover Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Nasia Safdar; Deverick J Anderson; Barbara I Braun; Philip Carling; Stuart Cohen; Curtis Donskey; Marci Drees; Anthony Harris; David K Henderson; Susan S Huang; Manisha Juthani-Mehta; Ebbing Lautenbach; Darren R Linkin; Jennifer Meddings; Loren G Miller; Aaron Milstone; Daniel Morgan; Sharmila Sengupta; Meera Varman; Deborah Yokoe; Danielle M Zerr Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.254