How to Choose Target Facilities in a Region to Implement Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae Control Measures. (23rd January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Bruce Y; Bartsch, Sarah M; Hayden, Mary K; Welling, Joel; Mueller, Leslie E; Brown, Shawn T; Doshi, Kruti; Leonard, Jim; Kemble, Sarah K; Weinstein, Robert A; Trick, William E; Lin, Michael Y
• Is Part Of: Clinical infectious diseases. Volume 72:Number 3(2021)
• Page Start: 438
• Page End: 447
• Publication Date: 2020-01-23
• Subjects: modeling -- intervention -- targets -- regional approaches -- antibiotic resistance; Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; 616.905
• DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa072
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1058-4838

Abstract

Abstract: Background: When trying to control regional spread of antibiotic-resistant pathogens such as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), decision makers must choose the highest-yield facilities to target for interventions. The question is, with limited resources, how best to choose these facilities. Methods: Using our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst–generated agent-based model of all Chicago metropolitan area inpatient facilities, we simulated the spread of CRE and different ways of choosing facilities to apply a prevention bundle (screening, chlorhexidine gluconate bathing, hand hygiene, geographic separation, and patient registry) to a resource-limited 1686 inpatient beds. Results: Randomly selecting facilities did not impact prevalence, but averted 620 new carriers and 175 infections, saving $6.3 million in total costs compared to no intervention. Selecting facilities by type (eg, long-term acute care hospitals) yielded a 16.1% relative prevalence decrease, preventing 1960 cases and 558 infections, saving $62.4 million more than random selection. Choosing the largest facilities was better than random selection, but not better than by type. Selecting by considering connections to other facilities (ie, highest volume of discharge patients) yielded a 9.5% relative prevalence decrease, preventing 1580 cases and 470 infections, and saving $51.6 million more than random selection. Selecting facilities using a combination of these metrics yielded the greatest reduction (19.0% relative prevalence decrease, preventing 1840 cases and 554 infections, saving $59.6 million compared with random selection). Conclusions: While choosing target facilities based on single metrics (eg, most inpatient beds, most connections to other facilities) achieved better control than randomly choosing facilities, more effective targeting occurred when considering how these and other factors (eg, patient length of stay, care for higher-risk patients) interacted as a system. Abstract : Choosing target facilities based on single metric (eg, inpatient beds, connections to other facilities) achieved better control than random selection, but more effective control considered how these and other factors (eg, length of stay, care for higher-risk patients) interacted as a system.