English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Multiple infection control interventions have been recommended to reduce hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (C. difficile; HO-CDI), including contact isolation, environmental disinfection, and hand hygiene. These interventions have differential effects on reducing HO-CDI that change for each hospital setting. In the context of today’s constrained resources, with trade-offs a necessary part of any prevention plan, infection control personnel need information regarding intervention cost-effectiveness that is tailored to their unique hospital setting. Methods We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nine infection control interventions and eight multiple-intervention bundles using our group’s agent-based model of C. difficile transmission. This previously developed model represents a general 200-bed acute-care adult hospital. Effectiveness was measured from the hospital perspective in terms of both quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and HO-CDIs. Results Six interventions reduced cost while increasing QALYs and averting HO-CDI, compared with baseline standard hospital practices: daily cleaning (saved an average of $407,854 and 36.8 QALYs annually in a 200-bed hospital), HCW hand hygiene ($181,767; 17.7 QALYs), patient hand hygiene ($25,700; 6.3 QALYs), terminal cleaning ($64,986; 12.8 QALYs), screening at admission ($9,083; 18.5 QALYs), and reducing patient transfers ($27,514; 3.1 QALYs). Adding patient hand hygiene to the HCW hand hygiene intervention was cost saving. When screening, HCW hand hygiene, and patient hand hygiene interventions were sequentially added to daily cleaning to form two, three, and four-pronged bundles, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for these additions were $26,588, $44,173, and $123,379 per QALY, respectively. Conclusion Using cost-effectiveness data, institutions may consider streamlining their infection control initiatives and prioritizing a smaller number of highly effective interventions. Our model could be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of existing core and emerging infection control interventions for specific hospital settings. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

open forum infectious diseases

2423. Cost-effectiveness of core and emerging infection control interventions to reduce hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection: An agent-based simulation modeling approach