Infection control programmes--are they cost-effective?
Infection control (IC) programmes are cost-effective in the long-term but much depends on the available resources and the support from management. The funding of IC programmes at present is linked to the Microbiology Department and a separate budget needs to be established. The best use of resources is to apply a risk assessment to each situation which presents and to adapt protocols accordingly. For example, the treatment of a carrier or an infected patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus cost 374 pounds and 2454 pounds, respectively in 1993, the major portion of the cost being due to an increased length of stay which was two days and 10 days, respectively. It is more cost-effective to treat carriers. The other cost-effective investment is in education and reinforcement of simple messages. Formal lectures seem to be the least effective way of producing long-term effect; frequent ward visits or contacts are most effective. Also, there is better compliance when there is a perceived risk to the staff themselves. The availability of the IC team to advise helps reduce waste and therefore cost. This is particularly true of antibiotic usage where it was noted that without guidance, the antibiotic usage increased by 2000 pounds per month when compared to a similar period in the previous year. The available provisions for IC programmes in the UK are utilized exceptionally well when compared with other countries.
Mehtar
S
S
Department of Microbiology, North Middlesex Hospital Trust, London, UK.
D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use; D002353:Carrier State / Q000188:drug therapy; D003253:Consultants; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005381:Financing, Organized; D006801:Humans; D017053:Infection Control / Q000191:economics*; D016357:Infection Control Practitioners; D007902:Length of Stay / Q000191:economics; D010564:Personnel, Hospital / Q000193:education; D018570:Risk Assessment
D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents