Economic Evaluation of Quality Improvement Interventions for Bloodstream Infections Related to Central Catheters: A Systematic Review.

Nuckols TK, Keeler E, Morton SC, Anderson L, Doyle B, Booth M, Shanman R, Grein J, Shekelle P. Economic Evaluation of Quality Improvement Interventions for Bloodstream Infections Related to Central Catheters: A Systematic Review. JAMA internal medicine. 2016 Dec 1; 176(12):1843-1854.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

Importance: Although quality improvement (QI) interventions can reduce central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), their economic value is uncertain. Objective: To systematically review economic evaluations of QI interventions designed to prevent CLABSI and/or CRBSI in acute care hospitals. Evidence Review: A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Econlit, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, Worldcat, prior systematic reviews (January 2004 to July 2016), and IDWeek conference abstracts (2013-2016), was conducted from 2013 to 2016. We included English-language studies of any design that evaluated organizational or structural changes to prevent CLABSI or CRBSI, and reported program and infection-related costs. Dual reviewers assessed study design, effectiveness, costs, and study quality. For each eligible study, we performed a cost-consequences analysis from the hospital perspective, estimating the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and incremental net savings. Unadjusted weighted regression analyses tested predictors of these measures, weighted by catheter-days per study per year. Findings: Of 505 articles, 15 unique studies were eligible, together representing data from 113 hospitals. Thirteen studies compared Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-recommended practices with usual care, including 7 testing insertion checklists. Eleven studies were based on uncontrolled before-after designs, 1 on a randomized controlled trial, 1 on a time-series analysis, and 2 on modeled estimates. Overall, the weighted mean IRR was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.35-0.51) and incremental net savings were $1.85 million (95% CI, $1.30 million to $2.40 million) per hospital over 3 years (2015 US dollars). Each $100?000-increase in program cost was associated with $315?000 greater savings (95% CI, $166?000-$464?000; P? < .001). Infections and net costs declined when hospitals already used checklists or had baseline infection rates of 1.7 to 3.7 per 1000 catheter-days. Study quality was not associated with effectiveness or costs. Conclusions and Relevance: Interventions related to central venous catheters were, on average, associated with 57% fewer bloodstream infections and substantial savings to hospitals. Larger initial investments may be associated with greater savings. Although checklists are now widely used and infections have started to decline, additional improvements and savings can occur at hospitals that have not yet attained very low infection rates.