Jan-Willem H Dik1, Bhanu Sinha1, Mariëtte Lokate1, Jerome R Lo-Ten-Foe1, Ariane G Dinkelacker1,2, Maarten J Postma3,4,5, Alexander W Friedrich1. 1. Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Straße 6, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Department of Pharmacy, Unit of PharmacoEpidemiology & PharmacoEconomics, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713AV, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Institute of Science in Healthy Aging & healthcaRE (SHARE), University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIM: Infection prevention (IP) measures are vital to prevent (nosocomial) outbreaks. Financial evaluations of these are scarce. An incremental cost analysis for an academic IP unit was performed. MATERIAL & METHODS: On a yearly basis, we evaluated: IP measures; costs thereof; numbers of patients at risk for causing nosocomial outbreaks; predicted outbreak patients; and actual outbreak patients. RESULTS: IP costs rose on average yearly with €150,000; however, more IP actions were undertaken. Numbers of patients colonized with high-risk microorganisms increased. The trend of actual outbreak patients remained stable. Predicted prevented outbreak patients saved costs, leading to a positive return on investment of 1.94. CONCLUSION: This study shows that investments in IP can prevent outbreak cases, thereby saving enough money to earn back these investments.
AIM: Infection prevention (IP) measures are vital to prevent (nosocomial) outbreaks. Financial evaluations of these are scarce. An incremental cost analysis for an academic IP unit was performed. MATERIAL & METHODS: On a yearly basis, we evaluated: IP measures; costs thereof; numbers of patients at risk for causing nosocomial outbreaks; predicted outbreak patients; and actual outbreak patients. RESULTS: IP costs rose on average yearly with €150,000; however, more IP actions were undertaken. Numbers of patients colonized with high-risk microorganisms increased. The trend of actual outbreak patients remained stable. Predicted prevented outbreak patients saved costs, leading to a positive return on investment of 1.94. CONCLUSION: This study shows that investments in IP can prevent outbreak cases, thereby saving enough money to earn back these investments.
Entities:
Keywords:
cost–benefit analysis; health economics; infection prevention; nosocomial outbreaks
Authors: Abdul Khairul Rizki Purba; Christian F Luz; Riyanti R Wulandari; Ieneke van der Gun; Jan-Willem Dik; Alex W Friedrich; Maarten J Postma Journal: Infect Drug Resist Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 4.003