Search

Objectives: To evaluate whether the costs of a successful tailored multifaceted strategy to improve hand hygiene compliance outweighed the savings by reducing infection costs in Dutch long-term care facilities (LTCFs)., Design: A retrospective cost analysis alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial., Setting and Participants: The study included 14 LTCFs (23 wards) in the Netherlands., Methods: The cost analysis was based on the costs of the intervention vs the savings from avoided infections and associated treatment costs. Infection-related costs of the "usual-care" period were compared with the combined infection-related costs and intervention costs from the "intervention" period and the costs in the "post-intervention period." Multilevel analyses, with a linear model with periods as fixed effects, random effects for cluster LTCFs, and fixed effects for each step, were completed., Results: There are no significant differences in total costs considering the 3 periods. When adjusting for time and clustering, the mean infection-related costs per week per LTCF for all the infections combined were highest during "usual-care" before the hand hygiene intervention was performed, namely 680 euros per week. Assuming the effect of the improvement strategy would be present for 12 months, the costs per week in the "intervention" and "post-intervention" periods were 627 euros (95% CI, 383-871) and 731 euros (95% CI, 508-954), respectively. Assuming the effect of the improvement strategy will last longer than 1 year (ie, 18 and 24 months), the average cost for the "intervention period" and the "post-intervention" period decreased to 615 euros and 719 euros during the intervention and 609 euros and 715 euros after the intervention, respectively., Conclusions and Implications: Our multifaceted hand hygiene improvement strategy achieves cost savings. The results of our study are the first of an economic analysis of a hand hygiene improvement strategy in LTCFs. The results need to be confirmed by further economic evaluations., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Culture-based antibiotic prophylaxis is a plausible strategy to reduce infections after transrectal prostate biopsy (PB) related to fluoroquinolone-resistant pathogens., Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of rectal culture-based prophylaxis compared with empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis., Design Setting and Participants: The study was performed alongside a trial in 11 Dutch hospitals investigating the effectiveness of culture-based prophylaxis in transrectal PB between April 2018 and July 2021 (trial registration number: NCT03228108)., Intervention: Patients were 1:1 randomized for empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis (oral) or culture-based prophylaxis. Costs for both prophylactic strategies were determined for two scenarios: (1) all infectious complications within 7 d after biopsy and (2) culture-proven Gram-negative infections within 30 d after biopsy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Differences in costs and effects (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were analyzed from a healthcare and societal perspective (including productivity losses, and travel and parking costs) using a bootstrap procedure presenting uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in a cost-effectiveness plane and acceptability curve., Results and Limitations: For the 7-d follow-up period, culture-based prophylaxis ( n  = 636) was €51.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.52-96.63) more expensive from a healthcare perspective and €16.95 (95% CI -54.29 to 88.18) from a societal perspective than empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis ( n  = 652). Ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria were detected in 15.4%. Extrapolating our data, from a healthcare perspective, 40% ciprofloxacin resistance would lead to equal cost for both strategies. Results were similar for the 30-d follow-up period. No significant differences in QALYs were observed., Conclusions: Our results should be interpreted in the context of local ciprofloxacin resistance rates. In our setting, from a healthcare perspective, culture-based prophylaxis was significantly more expensive than empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. From a societal perspective, culture-based prophylaxis was somewhat more cost effective against the threshold value customary for the Netherlands (€80.000)., Patient Summary: Culture-based prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsy was not associated with reduced costs compared with empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess whether the superior cost-effectiveness of a personalized physical therapy approach (Coach2Move)-which was demonstrated in a previous trial compared with usual care physical therapy (UCP)-can be replicated in daily clinical practice., Methods: A multicenter, cluster-randomized, stepped wedge trial with 4 clusters consisting of 4 physical therapist practices in the Netherlands was used to compare a personalized physical therapy approach to elicit physical activity (Coach2Move) versus care as usual. Multilevel analyses for effectiveness were conducted for the amount of physical activity (Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam Physical Activity Questionnaire) and functional mobility (Timed "Up & Go" Test) at 3, 6 (primary outcome), and 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes were level of frailty (Evaluative Frailty Index for Physical Activity), perceived effect (Global Perceived Effect and Patient-Specific Complaints Questionnaires), quality of life (Euro Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels [EQ-5D-5L]), and health care expenditures., Results: The 292 community-dwelling older adults with mobility problems visiting physical therapists were included in either the Coach2Move (n = 112; mean [SD] age = 82 [5] years; 60% female) or UCP (n = 180; mean [SD] age = 81 (6) years; 62% female) section of the trial. At baseline, Coach2Move participants were less physically active compared with UCP participants (mean difference = -198; 95% CI = -90 to -306 active minutes). At 6 months, between-group mean differences [95% CI] favored Coach2Move participants on physical activity levels (297 [83 to 512] active minutes), functional mobility (-14.2 [-21 to -8]) seconds), and frailty levels (-5 [-8 to -1] points). At 12 months, the physical activity levels of Coach2Move participants further increased, and frailty levels and secondary outcomes remained stable, whereas outcomes of UCP participants decreased. After the Coach2Move implementation strategy, physical therapists utilized significantly fewer treatment sessions compared with before the implementation (15 vs 22). Anticipated cost savings were not observed., Conclusion: This study replicated the results of an earlier trial and shows that Coach2Move leads to better mid- and long-term outcomes (physical activity, functional mobility, level of frailty) in fewer therapy sessions compared with UCP. Based on these and earlier findings, the implementation of Coach2Move in physical therapist practice is recommended., Impact: This article describes the implementation of the Coach2Move approach, a treatment strategy that has proven to be cost-effective in a previously conducted randomized controlled trial. Implementation of Coach2Move in a real-life setting allowed an evaluation of the effects in a clinically relevant population. Coach2Move has been shown to increase physical activity, improve functional mobility, and reduce frailty more effectively compared with UCP therapy and therefore has application for physical therapists working with older adults in daily clinical practice., Lay Summary: Coach2Move is a new physical therapy approach for older adults. Implementation of Coach2Move in daily clinical practice can help people better outcomes over a longer period of time against similar costs compared with regular physical therapy., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Physical Therapy Association.)

Introduction: Over 70% of the intensive care unit (ICU) survivors suffer from long-lasting physical, mental and cognitive problems after hospital discharge. Post-ICU care is recommended by international guidelines, but evidence for cost-effectiveness lacks. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of structured, multidisciplinary and personalised post-ICU care versus usual care on physical and psychological functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of ICU survivors, 1- and 2-year post-ICU discharge., Methods and Analysis: The MONITOR-IC post-ICU care study (MiCare study) is a multicentre stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial conducted in five hospitals. Adult patients at high risk for critical illness-associated morbidity post-ICU will be selected and receive post-ICU care, including an invitation to the post-ICU clinic 3 months after ICU discharge. A personalised long-term recovery plan tailored to patients' reported outcome measures will be made. 770 (intervention) and 1480 (control) patients will be included. Outcomes are 1- and 2-year HRQoL (EuroQol Instrument (EQ-5D-5L)), physical (fatigue and new physical problems), mental (anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder), and cognitive symptoms and cost-effectiveness. Medical data will be retrieved from patient records and cost data from health insurance companies., Ethics and Dissemination: Due to the lack of evidence, Dutch healthcare insurers do not reimburse post-ICU care. Therefore, evaluation of cost-effectiveness and integration in guidelines supports the evidence. Participation of several societies for physicians, nurses, paramedics, and patients and relatives in the project team increases the support for implementation of the intervention in clinical practice. Patients and relatives will be informed by the patient associations, hospitals and professional associations. Informing healthcare insurers about this project's results is important for the consideration for inclusion of post-ICU care in Dutch standard health insurance. The study is approved by the Radboud University Medical Centre research ethics committee (2021-13125)., Trial Registration Number: NCT05066984., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Antibiotic resistance requires continuous monitoring by experts to decide whether empirical antibiotic therapies (EATs) should be replaced by alternative antibiotics. The exact moment and criteria for this change are unclear and generally based on consensus between experts. This scoping review aims to identify from the literature the resistance thresholds used for a change in EAT and the criteria on which they are based., Methods: Scoping review for which a comprehensive structured literature search was conducted. Rayyan, software for systematic reviews, was used for the screening of abstracts and titles. Data sources were Pubmed and a hand-search of reference lists and grey literature. Papers were eligible if they concerned any type of bacterial infectious disease and mentioned or defined antibiotic resistance thresholds for decision-making purposes for EAT. The inclusion and analysis of articles was done by two researchers; any conflicts were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer., Results: We identified 3146 unique papers. Following title/abstract screening, 125 papers were comprehensively read, and 16 papers were included. The included papers gave thresholds for urinary tract infections, respiratory tract infections, meningitis, skin and soft tissue infections, gonorrhoea, and bone and joint infections. Six criteria were found that were commonly used to base the thresholds on. These were: disease severity, efficacy of treatment, adverse drug events, risk of Clostridioides difficile infection, costs, and increased resistance. The number of criteria used to define each threshold varied from one to six between papers., Conclusions: The thresholds used for EATs are few, commonly based on expert opinion estimates, and can therefore have broad ranges. Used criteria underlying reported thresholds are heterogenous and require standardization. Considering the rising trend in resistance, there is a clear need for rigid tools to determine thresholds in order to support guideline development with the best and timely evidence., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)