25278390<\/a><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h2>\n
BACKGROUND: <\/strong>There is a large and growing body of evidence that methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening programs are cost effective, but such screening represents a significant cost burden for hospitals. This study investigates the clinical, patient experience and cost impacts of performing active surveillance on known methicillin-resistant S aureus positive (MRSA+) patients admitted to 7 medical-surgical units of a large regional hospital, specifically to allow discontinuation of contact isolation.<\/p>\nMETHODS: <\/strong>We conducted mixed-methods retrospective evaluation of a process improvement project that screened admitted patients with known MRSA+ status for continued MRSA colonization.<\/p>\nRESULTS: <\/strong>Of those eligible patients on our institution’s MRSA+ list who did complete testing, 80.2% (130\/162) were found to be no longer colonized, and only 19.8% (32\/162) were still colonized. Forty-one percent (13\/32) of interviewed patients in contact isolation for MRSA reported that isolation had affected their hospital stay, and 28% (9\/32) of patients reported emotional distress resulting from their isolation. Total cost savings of the program are estimated at $101,230 per year across the 7 study units.<\/p>\nCONCLUSION: <\/strong>Our findings provide supporting evidence that a screening program targeting patients with a history of MRSA who would otherwise be placed in isolation has the potential to improve outcomes and patient experience and reduce costs.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Goldsack JC, DeRitter C, Power M, Spencer A, Taylor CL, Kim SF, Kirk R, Drees M Am J Infect Control 2014 Oct;42(10):1039-43 PMID: 25278390 Abstract BACKGROUND: There is a large and growing body of evidence that methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening programs are cost effective, but such screening represents a significant cost burden for hospitals.<\/p>\n
Continue reading Clinical, patient experience and cost impacts of performing active surveillance on known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus positive patients admitted to medical-surgical units<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pubs-pres"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6669"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6669\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.christianacare.org\/publications\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}