Faculty of Arts, Nursing and Theology, Avondale College of Higher Education, 185 Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga, New South Wales 2076, Australia; School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Nursing Research Institute, Australian Catholic University & St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Lifestyle Research Centre, Avondale College of Higher Education, Cooranbong, New South Wales, Australia.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2019 Sep;97:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.04.003. Epub 2019 Apr 13.
Catheter associated urinary tract infections are one of the most common infections acquired in hospital. A recent randomised control study demonstrated the benefit of using chlorhexidine (0.1%) for meatal cleaning prior to urinary catheter insertion, by reducing both catheter associated asymptomatic bacteriuria and infection. These findings raise the important question of whether a decision to switch from saline to chlorhexidine was likely to be cost-effective. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adopting routine use of chlorhexidine for meatal cleaning prior to urinary catheter insertion METHODS: The outcomes of this cost-effectiveness study are changes to health service costs in $AUD and changes to quality adjusted life years from a decision to adopt 0.1% chlorhexidine for meatal cleaning prior to urinary catheter insertion as compared to saline. Effectiveness outcomes for this study were taken from a 32 week stepped wedge randomised controlled study conducted in three Australian hospitals.
The changes in health costs from switching from saline to 0.1% chlorhexidine per 100,000 catheterisations would save hospitals AUD$387,909 per 100,000 catherisations, prevent 70 cases of catheter associated urinary tract infections, release 282 bed days and provide a small improvement in health benefits of 1.43 quality adjusted life years. Using a maximum willingness to pay for a marginal quality adjusted life year threshold of AUD$28,000 per 100,000 catherisations, suggests that adopting chlorhexidine would be cost effective and potentially cost-saving.
The findings from our work provide evidence to health system administrators and those responsible for drafting catheter associated urinary tract infections prevention guidelines that investing in switching from saline to chlorhexidine is not only clinically effective but also a sensible decision in the context of allocating finite healthcare resources.
导管相关尿路感染是医院获得性感染中最常见的感染之一。最近的一项随机对照研究表明,在导尿前使用洗必泰(0.1%)进行尿道口清洁可以减少导管相关无症状菌尿和感染,从而获益。这些发现提出了一个重要问题,即是否有可能从生理盐水切换到洗必泰以降低成本。本研究旨在评估在导尿前常规使用洗必泰进行尿道口清洁的成本效益。
本成本效益研究的结果是澳大利亚 3 家医院进行的为期 32 周的逐步楔形随机对照研究中,与生理盐水相比,采用 0.1%洗必泰进行尿道口清洁对卫生服务成本和健康调整生命年的变化。本研究的有效性结果来自于一项为期 32 周的逐步楔形随机对照研究,该研究在澳大利亚的三家医院进行。
从生理盐水切换到 0.1%洗必泰,每 10 万例导管化治疗的卫生成本变化将使医院每 10 万例导管化治疗节省 387,909 澳元,预防 70 例导管相关尿路感染,释放 282 个床位日,并在健康效益方面略有改善,提高了 1.43 个健康调整生命年。采用边际质量调整生命年阈值最高为 28,000 澳元/10 万例导管化治疗的最大意愿支付意愿,表明采用洗必泰不仅具有临床效果,而且在分配有限的医疗资源方面也是一个明智的决策。
我们的研究结果为卫生系统管理者和负责制定导管相关尿路感染预防指南的人员提供了证据,表明投资从生理盐水切换到洗必泰不仅在临床有效,而且在分配有限的医疗资源方面也是一个合理的决策。