Search

Patricia Mabry and coauthors discuss application of systems approaches in cancer research.

ImportanceMultidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) can spread across health care facilities in a region. Because of limited resources, certain interventions can be implemented in only some facilities; thus, decision-makers need to evaluate which interventions may be best to implement.ObjectiveTo identify a group of target facilities and assess which MDRO intervention would be best to implement in the Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County, a large regional public health collaborative in Orange County, California.Design, setting, and participantsAn agent-based model of health care facilities was developed in 2016 to simulate the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) for 10 years starting in 2010 and to simulate the use of various MDRO interventions for 3 years starting in 2017. All health care facilities (23 hospitals, 5 long-term acute care hospitals, and 74 nursing homes) serving adult inpatients in Orange County, California, were included, and 42 target facilities were identified via network analyses.ExposuresIncreasing contact precaution effectiveness, increasing interfacility communication about patients' MDRO status, and performing decolonization using antiseptic bathing soap and a nasal product in a specific group of target facilities.Main outcomes and measuresMRSA and CRE prevalence and number of new carriers (ie, transmission events).ResultsCompared with continuing infection control measures used in Orange County as of 2017, increasing contact precaution effectiveness from 40% to 64% in 42 target facilities yielded relative reductions of 0.8% (range, 0.5%-1.1%) in MRSA prevalence and 2.4% (range, 0.8%-4.6%) in CRE prevalence in health care facilities countywide after 3 years, averting 761 new MRSA transmission events (95% CI, 756-765 events) and 166 new CRE transmission events (95% CI, 158-174 events). Increasing interfacility communication of patients' MDRO status to 80% in these target facilities produced no changes in the prevalence or transmission of MRDOs. Implementing decolonization procedures (clearance probability: 39% in hospitals, 27% in long-term acute care facilities, and 3% in nursing homes) yielded a relative reduction of 23.7% (range, 23.5%-23.9%) in MRSA prevalence, averting 3515 new transmission events (95% CI, 3509-3521 events). Increasing the effectiveness of antiseptic bathing soap to 48% yielded a relative reduction of 39.9% (range, 38.5%-41.5%) in CRE prevalence, averting 1435 new transmission events (95% CI, 1427-1442 events).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study highlight the ways in which modeling can inform design of regional interventions and suggested that decolonization would be the best strategy for the Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County.

BackgroundClinical testing detects a fraction of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) carriers. Detecting a greater proportion could lead to increased use of infection prevention and control measures but requires resources. Therefore, it is important to understand the impact of detecting increasing proportions of CRE carriers.MethodsWe used our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst-generated agent-based model of adult inpatient healthcare facilities in Orange County, California, to explore the impact that detecting greater proportions of carriers has on the spread of CRE.ResultsDetecting and placing 1 in 9 carriers on contact precautions increased the prevalence of CRE from 0% to 8.0% countywide over 10 years. Increasing the proportion of detected carriers from 1 in 9 up to 1 in 5 yielded linear reductions in transmission; at proportions >1 in 5, reductions were greater than linear. Transmission reductions did not occur for 1, 4, or 5 years, varying by facility type. With a contact precautions effectiveness of ≤70%, the detection level yielding nonlinear reductions remained unchanged; with an effectiveness of >80%, detecting only 1 in 5 carriers garnered large reductions in the number of new CRE carriers. Trends held when CRE was already present in the region.ConclusionAlthough detection of all carriers provided the most benefits for preventing new CRE carriers, if this is not feasible, it may be worthwhile to aim for detecting >1 in 5 carriers.

BackgroundClinical testing detects a fraction of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) carriers. Detecting a greater proportion could lead to increased use of infection prevention and control measures but requires resources. Therefore, it is important to understand the impact of detecting increasing proportions of CRE carriers.MethodsWe used our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst-generated agent-based model of adult inpatient healthcare facilities in Orange County, California, to explore the impact that detecting greater proportions of carriers has on the spread of CRE.ResultsDetecting and placing 1 in 9 carriers on contact precautions increased the prevalence of CRE from 0% to 8.0% countywide over 10 years. Increasing the proportion of detected carriers from 1 in 9 up to 1 in 5 yielded linear reductions in transmission; at proportions >1 in 5, reductions were greater than linear. Transmission reductions did not occur for 1, 4, or 5 years, varying by facility type. With a contact precautions effectiveness of ≤70%, the detection level yielding nonlinear reductions remained unchanged; with an effectiveness of >80%, detecting only 1 in 5 carriers garnered large reductions in the number of new CRE carriers. Trends held when CRE was already present in the region.ConclusionAlthough detection of all carriers provided the most benefits for preventing new CRE carriers, if this is not feasible, it may be worthwhile to aim for detecting >1 in 5 carriers.

BackgroundMultidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) spread between hospitals, nursing homes (NHs), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via patient transfers. The Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County is a regional public health collaborative involving decolonization at 38 healthcare facilities selected based on their high degree of patient sharing. We report baseline MDRO prevalence in 21 NHs/LTACs.MethodsA random sample of 50 adults for 21 NHs/LTACs (18 NHs, 3 LTACs) were screened for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE), extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing organisms (ESBL), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) using nares, skin (axilla/groin), and peri-rectal swabs. Facility and resident characteristics associated with MDRO carriage were assessed using multivariable models clustering by person and facility.ResultsPrevalence of MDROs was 65% in NHs and 80% in LTACs. The most common MDROs in NHs were MRSA (42%) and ESBL (34%); in LTACs they were VRE (55%) and ESBL (38%). CRE prevalence was higher in facilities that manage ventilated LTAC patients and NH residents (8% vs

Background With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination no longer mandated by many businesses/organizations, it is now up to individuals to decide whether to get any new boosters/updated vaccines going forward. Methods We developed a Markov model representing the potential clinical/economic outcomes from an individual perspective in the United States of getting versus not getting an annual COVID-19 vaccine. Results For an 18–49 year old, getting vaccinated at its current price ($60) can save the individual on average $ 30–$603 if the individual is uninsured and $4–$437 if the individual has private insurance, as long as the starting vaccine efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is ≥50% and the weekly risk of getting infected is ≥0.2%, corresponding to an individual interacting with 9 other people in a day under Winter 2023–2024 Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant conditions with an average infection prevalence of 10%. For a 50–64 year old, these cost-savings increase to $111–$1278 and $119–$1706 for someone without and with insurance, respectively. The risk threshold increases to ≥0.4% (interacting with 19 people/day), when the individual has 13.4% preexisting protection against infection (eg, vaccinated 9 months earlier). Conclusions There is both clinical and economic incentive for the individual to continue to get vaccinated against COVID-19 each year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVEWhile previous work showed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention toolkit for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) can reduce spread regionally, these interventions are costly, and decisions makers want to know whether and when economic benefits occur.DESIGNEconomic analysisSETTINGOrange County, CaliforniaMETHODSUsing our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst (RHEA)-generated agent-based model of all inpatient healthcare facilities, we simulated the implementation of the CRE toolkit (active screening of interfacility transfers) in different ways and estimated their economic impacts under various circumstances.RESULTSCompared to routine control measures, screening generated cost savings by year 1 when hospitals implemented screening after identifying ≤20 CRE cases (saving $2,000-$9,000) and by year 7 if all hospitals implemented in a regional coordinated manner after 1 hospital identified a CRE case (hospital perspective). Cost savings was achieved only if hospitals independently screened after identifying 10 cases (year 1, third-party payer perspective). Cost savings was achieved by year 1 if hospitals independently screened after identifying 1 CRE case and by year 3 if all hospitals coordinated and screened after 1 hospital identified 1 case (societal perspective). After a few years, all strategies cost less and have positive health effects compared to routine control measures; most strategies generate a positive cost-benefit each year.CONCLUSIONSActive screening of interfacility transfers garnered cost savings in year 1 of implementation when hospitals acted independently and by year 3 if all hospitals collectively implemented the toolkit in a coordinated manner. Despite taking longer to manifest, coordinated regional control resulted in greater savings over time.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:516-524.

Abstract Background MDROs can spread between hospitals, nursing homes (NH), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via shared patients. SHIELD OC is a regional decolonization collaborative involving 38 of 104 countywide adult facilities identified by their high degree of direct and indirect patient sharing with one another. We report baseline MDRO prevalence in these facilities. Methods Adult patients in 38 facilities (17 hospitals, 18 NHs, 3 LTACs) underwent point-prevalence screening between September 2016–April 2017 for MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and CRE using nares, skin (axilla/groin), and peri-rectal swabs. In NHs and LTACs, residents were randomly selected until 50 sets of swabs were obtained. Swabbing in hospitals involved all patients in contact precautions. An additional set of swabs were also performed for all LTAC admissions from November 2016–February 2017. Results The overall prevalence of any MDRO among patients was 64% (44%–88%) in NHs, 80% (range 72%–86%) in LTACs, and 64% (54–84%) in hospitals (contact precaution patients) (Table 1). Only 25%, 64%, and 81% of patients were already known to harbor an MDRO in NHs, LTACs, and hospitals, respectively. Known MDRO patients also harbored another MDRO 49%, 63%, and 34% of the time for NHs, LTACs, and hospitals, respectively. In LTACs, MDRO point prevalence was 38% higher than the usual admission prevalence (65% higher for MRSA, 34% higher for VRE, 95% higher for ESBL, and 50% higher for CRE). Conclusion MDRO carriage in highly inter-connected NHs and LTACs was widespread, rivaling that found in hospitalized patients on contact precautions. MRSA, VRE, and ESBL carriage far outnumbered CRE carriage. A history of MDRO was insensitive for identifying MDRO carriers, and many patients carried multiple MDROs. The extensive MDRO burden and transmission in long-term care settings suggests that regional MDRO prevention efforts must include MDRO control in long-term care facilities. Disclosures R. D. Singh, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. A. McKinnell, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L. G. Miller, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; K. Kleinman, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L. Heim, Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; T. D. Dutciuc, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; M. Estevez, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; G. Gussin, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L’Oreal: Consultant, Consulting fee; J. Chang, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; E. M. Peterson, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; B. Y. Lee, GSK: Consultant, Consulting fee; R. A. Weinstein, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; OpGen Company: Study support, Provided services at no charge; M. K. Hayden, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Sage is contributing product to healthcare facilities participating in a regional collaborative on which I am a co-investigator. Neither I nor my hospital receive product.; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Research support; CDC: Grant Investigator and Receipt of contributed product, Research grant; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; OpGen Company: Study support, Provided services at no charge for studies; S. K. Gohil, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Park, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Tam, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; R. Saavedra, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Yamaguchi, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; H. Custodio, Xttrium Laboratories: Study coordination, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Study coordination, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Study coordination, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. Nguyen, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; T. Tjoa, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. He, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; M. H. Coady, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; R. Platt, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting clinical studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting clinical studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting clinical studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product; receive research funds from Clorox, but Clorox has no role in the design; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. S. Huang, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product

Delays often occur between CLSI and FDA revisions of antimicrobial interpretive criteria. Using our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst (RHEA) simulation model, we found that the 32-month delay in changing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) breakpoints might have resulted in 1,821 additional carriers in Orange County, CA, an outcome that could have been avoided by identifying CRE and initiating contact precautions. Policy makers should aim to minimize the delay in the adoption of new breakpoints for antimicrobials against emerging pathogens when containment of spread is paramount; delays of

A recent trial showed that universal decolonization in adult intensive care units (ICUs) resulted in greater reductions in all bloodstream infections and clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) than either targeted decolonization or screening and isolation. Since regional health-care facilities are highly interconnected through patient-sharing, focusing on individual ICUs may miss the broader impact of decolonization. Using our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst simulation model of all health-care facilities in Orange County, California, we evaluated the impact of chlorhexidine baths and mupirocin on all ICU admissions when universal decolonization was implemented for 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of ICU beds countywide (compared with screening and contact precautions). Direct benefits were substantial in ICUs implementing decolonization (a median 60% relative reduction in MRSA prevalence). When 100% of countywide ICU beds were decolonized, there were spillover effects in general wards, long-term acute-care facilities, and nursing homes resulting in median 8.0%, 3.0%, and 1.9% relative MRSA reductions at 1 year, respectively. MRSA prevalence decreased by a relative 3.2% countywide, with similar effects for methicillin-susceptible S. aureus. We showed that a large proportion of decolonization's benefits are missed when accounting only for ICU impact. Approximately 70% of the countywide cases of MRSA carriage averted after 1 year of universal ICU decolonization were outside the ICU.

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), a group of pathogens resistant to most antibiotics and associated with high mortality, are a rising emerging public health threat. Current approaches to infection control and prevention have not been adequate to prevent spread. An important but unproven approach is to have hospitals in a region coordinate surveillance and infection control measures. Using our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst (RHEA) simulation model and detailed Orange County, California, patient-level data on adult inpatient hospital and nursing home admissions (2011-2012), we simulated the spread of CRE throughout Orange County health-care facilities under 3 scenarios: no specific control measures, facility-level infection control efforts (uncoordinated control measures), and a coordinated regional effort. Aggressive uncoordinated and coordinated approaches were highly similar, averting 2,976 and 2,789 CRE transmission events, respectively (72.2% and 77.0% of transmission events), by year 5. With moderate control measures, coordinated regional control resulted in 21.3% more averted cases (n = 408) than did uncoordinated control at year 5. Our model suggests that without increased infection control approaches, CRE would become endemic in nearly all Orange County health-care facilities within 10 years. While implementing the interventions in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's CRE toolkit would not completely stop the spread of CRE, it would cut its spread substantially, by half.

BackgroundTreatments for health care-associated infections (HAIs) caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile are limited, and some patients have developed untreatable infections. Evidence-supported interventions are available, but coordinated approaches to interrupt the spread of HAIs could have a greater impact on reversing the increasing incidence of these infections than independent facility-based program efforts.MethodsData from CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network and Emerging Infections Program were analyzed to project the number of health care-associated infections from antibiotic-resistant bacteria or C. difficile both with and without a large scale national intervention that would include interrupting transmission and improved antibiotic stewardship. As an example, the impact of reducing transmission of one antibiotic-resistant infection (carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae [CRE]) on cumulative prevalence and number of HAI transmission events within interconnected groups of health care facilities was modeled using two distinct approaches, a large scale and a smaller scale health care network.ResultsImmediate nationwide infection control and antibiotic stewardship interventions, over 5 years, could avert an estimated 619,000 HAIs resulting from CRE, multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), or C. difficile. Compared with independent efforts, a coordinated response to prevent CRE spread across a group of inter-connected health care facilities resulted in a cumulative 74% reduction in acquisitions over 5 years in a 10-facility network model, and 55% reduction over 15 years in a 102-facility network model.ConclusionsWith effective action now, more than half a million antibiotic-resistant health care-associated infections could be prevented over 5 years. Models representing both large and small groups of interconnected health care facilities illustrate that a coordinated approach to interrupting transmission is more effective than historical independent facilitybased efforts.Implications for public healthPublic health-led coordinated prevention approaches have the potential to more completely address the emergence and dissemination of these antibiotic-resistant organisms and C. difficile than independent facility-based efforts.

OBJECTIVE To explore the economic impact to a hospital of universal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening. METHODS We used a decision tree model to estimate the direct economic impact to an individual hospital of starting universal MRSA screening and contact precautions. Projected costs and benefits were based on literature-derived data. Our model examined outcomes of several strategies including non-nares MRSA screening and comparison of culture versus polymerase chain reaction-based screening. RESULTS Under baseline conditions, the costs of universal MRSA screening and contact precautions outweighed the projected benefits generated by preventing MRSA-related infections, resulting in economic costs of $104,000 per 10,000 admissions (95% CI, $83,000-$126,000). Cost-savings occurred only when the model used estimates at the extremes of our key parameters. Non-nares screening and polymerase chain reaction-based testing, both of which identified more MRSA-colonized persons, resulted in more MRSA infections averted but increased economic costs of the screening program. CONCLUSIONS We found that universal MRSA screening, although providing potential benefit in preventing MRSA infection, is relatively costly and may be economically burdensome for a hospital. Policy makers should consider the economic burden of MRSA screening and contact precautions in relation to other interventions when choosing programs to improve patient safety and outcomes.

BackgroundBecause hospitals in a region are connected via patient sharing, a norovirus outbreak in one hospital may spread to others.MethodsWe utilized our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst software to generate an agent-based model of all the acute care facilities in Orange County (OC), California and simulated various norovirus outbreaks in different locations, both with and without contact precautions.ResultsAt the lower end of norovirus reproductive rate (R0) estimates (1.64), an outbreak tended to remain confined to the originating hospital (≤6.1% probability of spread). However, at the higher end of R0 (3.74), an outbreak spread 4.1%-17.5% of the time to almost all other OC hospitals within 30 days, regardless of the originating hospital. Implementing contact precautions for all symptomatic cases reduced the probability of spread to other hospitals within 30 days and the total number of cases countywide, but not the number of other hospitals seeing norovirus cases.ConclusionsA single norovirus outbreak can continue to percolate throughout a system of different hospitals for several months and appear as a series of unrelated outbreaks, highlighting the need for hospitals within a region to more aggressively and cooperatively track and control an initial outbreak.

BackgroundBecause patients can remain colonized with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) for long periods of time, VRE may spread from one health care facility to another.MethodsUsing the Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst, an agent-based model of patient flow among all Orange County, California, hospitals and communities, we quantified the degree and speed at which changes in VRE colonization prevalence in a hospital may affect prevalence in other Orange County hospitals.ResultsA sustained 10% increase in VRE colonization prevalence in any 1 hospital caused a 2.8% (none to 62%) average relative increase in VRE prevalence in all other hospitals. Effects took from 1.5 to >10 years to fully manifest. Larger hospitals tended to have greater affect on other hospitals.ConclusionsWhen monitoring and controlling VRE, decision makers may want to account for regional effects. Knowing a hospital's connections with other health care facilities via patient sharing can help determine which hospitals to include in a surveillance or control program.

ObjectiveAs healthcare systems continue to expand and interconnect with each other through patient sharing, administrators, policy makers, infection control specialists, and other decision makers may have to take account of the entire healthcare 'ecosystem' in infection control.Materials and methodsWe developed a software tool, the Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst (RHEA), that can accept user-inputted data to rapidly create a detailed agent-based simulation model (ABM) of the healthcare ecosystem (ie, all healthcare facilities, their adjoining community, and patient flow among the facilities) of any region to better understand the spread and control of infectious diseases.ResultsTo demonstrate RHEA's capabilities, we fed extensive data from Orange County, California, USA, into RHEA to create an ABM of a healthcare ecosystem and simulate the spread and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Various experiments explored the effects of changing different parameters (eg, degree of transmission, length of stay, and bed capacity).DiscussionOur model emphasizes how individual healthcare facilities are components of integrated and dynamic networks connected via patient movement and how occurrences in one healthcare facility may affect many other healthcare facilities.ConclusionsA decision maker can utilize RHEA to generate a detailed ABM of any healthcare system of interest, which in turn can serve as a virtual laboratory to test different policies and interventions.

BackgroundHospital infection control strategies and programs may not consider control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in nursing homes in a county.MethodsUsing our Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst, we augmented our existing agent-based model of all hospitals in Orange County (OC), California, by adding all nursing homes and then simulated MRSA outbreaks in various health care facilities.ResultsThe addition of nursing homes substantially changed MRSA transmission dynamics throughout the county. The presence of nursing homes substantially potentiated the effects of hospital outbreaks on other hospitals, leading to an average 46.2% (range, 3.3%-156.1%) relative increase above and beyond the impact when only hospitals are included for an outbreak in OC's largest hospital. An outbreak in the largest hospital affected all other hospitals (average 2.1% relative prevalence increase) and the majority (~90%) of nursing homes (average 3.2% relative increase) after 6 months. An outbreak in the largest nursing home had effects on multiple OC hospitals, increasing MRSA prevalence in directly connected hospitals by an average 0.3% and in hospitals not directly connected through patient transfers by an average 0.1% after 6 months. A nursing home outbreak also had some effect on MRSA prevalence in other nursing homes.ConclusionsNursing homes, even those not connected by direct patient transfers, may be a vital component of a hospital's infection control strategy. To achieve effective control, a hospital may want to better understand how regional nursing homes and hospitals are connected through both direct and indirect (with intervening stays at home) patient sharing.

ObjectiveImplementation of contact precautions in nursing homes to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) transmission could cost time and effort and may have wide-ranging effects throughout multiple health facilities. Computational modeling could forecast the potential effects and guide policy making.DesignOur multihospital computational agent-based model, Regional Healthcare Ecosystem Analyst (RHEA).SettingAll hospitals and nursing homes in Orange County, California.MethodsOur simulation model compared the following 3 contact precaution strategies: (1) no contact precautions applied to any nursing home residents, (2) contact precautions applied to those with clinically apparent MRSA infections, and (3) contact precautions applied to all known MRSA carriers as determined by MRSA screening performed by hospitals.ResultsOur model demonstrated that contact precautions for patients with clinically apparent MRSA infections in nursing homes resulted in a median 0.4% (range, 0%-1.6%) relative decrease in MRSA prevalence in nursing homes (with 50% adherence) but had no effect on hospital MRSA prevalence, even 5 years after initiation. Implementation of contact precautions (with 50% adherence) in nursing homes for all known MRSA carriers was associated with a median 14.2% (range, 2.1%-21.8%) relative decrease in MRSA prevalence in nursing homes and a 2.3% decrease (range, 0%-7.1%) in hospitals 1 year after implementation. Benefits accrued over time and increased with increasing compliance.ConclusionsOur modeling study demonstrated the substantial benefits of extending contact precautions in nursing homes from just those residents with clinically apparent infection to all MRSA carriers, which suggests the benefits of hospitals and nursing homes sharing and coordinating information on MRSA surveillance and carriage status.

Efforts to control life-threatening infections, such as with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), can be complicated when patients are transferred from one hospital to another. Using a detailed computer simulation model of all hospitals in Orange County, California, we explored the effects when combinations of hospitals tested all patients at admission for MRSA and adopted procedures to limit transmission among patients who tested positive. Called "contact isolation," these procedures specify precautions for health care workers interacting with an infected patient, such as wearing gloves and gowns. Our simulation demonstrated that each hospital's decision to test for MRSA and implement contact isolation procedures could affect the MRSA prevalence in all other hospitals. Thus, our study makes the case that further cooperation among hospitals--which is already reflected in a few limited collaborative infection control efforts under way--could help individual hospitals achieve better infection control than they could achieve on their own.

BackgroundAcute care facilities are connected via patient sharing, forming a network. However, patient sharing extends beyond this immediate network to include sharing with long-term care facilities. The extent of long-term care facility patient sharing on the acute care facility network is unknown. The objective of this study was to characterize and determine the extent and pattern of patient transfers to, from, and between long-term care facilities on the network of acute care facilities in a large metropolitan county.Methods/Principal FindingsWe applied social network constructs principles, measures, and frameworks to all 2007 annual adult and pediatric patient transfers among the healthcare facilities in Orange County, California, using data from surveys and several datasets. We evaluated general network and centrality measures as well as individual ego measures and further constructed sociograms. Our results show that over the course of a year, 66 of 72 long-term care facilities directly sent and 67 directly received patients from other long-term care facilities. Long-term care facilities added 1,524 ties between the acute care facilities when ties represented at least one patient transfer. Geodesic distance did not closely correlate with the geographic distance among facilities.Conclusions/SignificanceThis study demonstrates the extent to which long-term care facilities are connected to the acute care facility patient sharing network. Many long-term care facilities were connected by patient transfers and further added many connections to the acute care facility network. This suggests that policy-makers and health officials should account for patient sharing with and among long-term care facilities as well as those among acute care facilities when evaluating policies and interventions.

A major challenge in communicating health-related information is the involvement of multiple complex systems from the creation of the information to the sources and channels of dispersion to the information users themselves. To date, public health communications approaches have often not adequately accounted for the complexities of these systems to the degree necessary to have maximum impact. The virality of COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation has brought to light the need to consider these system complexities more extensively. Unaided, it is difficult for humans to see and fully understand complex systems. Luckily, there are a range of systems approaches and methods, such as systems mapping and systems modeling, that can help better elucidate complex systems. Using these methods to better characterize the various systems involved in communicating public health-related information can lead to the development of more tailored, precise, and proactive communications. Proceeding in an iterative manner to help design, implement, and adjust such communications strategies can increase impact and leave less opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to spread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]