|
Academic/Biomedical Research
News & Jobs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free Newsletters
Archive
My Subscriptions

News by Subject
News by Disease
News by Date
PLoS
Search News
Post Your News
JoVE

Job Seeker Login
Most Recent Jobs
Search Jobs
Post Resume
Career Fairs
Career Resources
For Employers

Regional News
US & Canada
Biotech Bay
Biotech Beach
Genetown
Pharm Country
BioCapital
BioMidwest
Bio NC
BioForest
Southern Pharm
BioCanada East
US Device
Europe
Asia


Company Profiles

Research Store

Research Events
Post an Event

Real Estate
Business Opportunities
|
|
|
|
|
PLoS By Category | Recent
PLoS Articles
|
|
Evidence-Based Healthcare
|
Cost-Effectiveness of a Central Venous Catheter Care Bundle
Published:
Friday, September 17, 2010
Author:
Kate A. Halton et al.
by Kate A. Halton, David Cook, David L. Paterson, Nasia Safdar, Nicholas Graves
Background A bundled approach to central venous catheter care is currently being promoted as an effective way of preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI). Consumables used in the bundled approach are relatively inexpensive which may lead to the conclusion that the bundle is cost-effective. However, this fails to consider the nontrivial costs of the monitoring and education activities required to implement the bundle, or that alternative strategies are available to prevent CR-BSI. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a bundle to prevent CR-BSI in Australian intensive care patients. Methods and Findings A Markov decision model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the bundle relative to remaining with current practice (a non-bundled approach to catheter care and uncoated catheters), or use of antimicrobial catheters. We assumed the bundle reduced relative risk of CR-BSI to 0.34. Given uncertainty about the cost of the bundle, threshold analyses were used to determine the maximum cost at which the bundle remained cost-effective relative to the other approaches to infection control. Sensitivity analyses explored how this threshold alters under different assumptions about the economic value placed on bed-days and health benefits gained by preventing infection. If clinicians are prepared to use antimicrobial catheters, the bundle is cost-effective if national 18-month implementation costs are below $1.1 million. If antimicrobial catheters are not an option the bundle must cost less than $4.3 million. If decision makers are only interested in obtaining cash-savings for the unit, and place no economic value on either the bed-days or the health benefits gained through preventing infection, these cost thresholds are reduced by two-thirds. Conclusions A catheter care bundle has the potential to be cost-effective in the Australian intensive care setting. Rather than anticipating cash-savings from this intervention, decision makers must be prepared to invest resources in infection control to see efficiency improvements.
More...
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|