Efforts of hospital system wound care teams to reduce hospital acquired pressure ulcers

New reimbursement policies developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are revolutionizing the health care landscape in America. The policies focus on clinical quality and patient outcomes. As part of the new policies, certain hospital acquired conditions have been identified by Medicare as "reasonably preventable". Beginning October 1, 2008, Medicare will no longer reimburse hospitals for these conditions developed after admission, pressure ulcers are among the most common of these conditions.^ In this practice-based culminating experience the objective was to provide a practical account of the process of program development, implementation and evaluation in a public health setting. In order to decrease the incidence of pressure ulcers, the program development team of the hospital system developed a comprehensive pressure ulcer prevention program using a "bundled" approach. The pressure ulcer prevention bundle was based on research supported by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, and addressed key areas of clinical vulnerability for pressure ulcer development. The bundle consisted of clinical processes, policies, forms, and resources designed to proactively identify patients at risk for pressure ulcer development. Each element of the bundle was evaluated to ensure ease of integration into the workflow of nurses and clinical ancillary staff. Continued monitoring of pressure ulcer incidence rates will provide statistical validation of the impact of the prevention bundle. ^

The cost effective management of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSIs) comparing the central line bundle to antimicrobialcoated central venous catheters: A systematic review

Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSIs) are one of the most costly and preventable cases of morbidity and mortality among intensive care units (ICUs) in health care today. In 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Program, under the Deficit Reduction Act, announced it will no longer reimburse hospitals for such adverse events among those related to CLABSIs. This reveals the financial burden shift onto the hospital rather than the health care payer who can now withhold reimbursements. With this weighing more heavily on hospital management, decision makers will need to find a way to completely prevent cases of CLABSI or simply pay for the financial consequences. ^ To reduce the risk of CLABSIs, several clinical, preventive interventions have been studied and even instituted including the Central Line (CL) Bundle and Antimicrobial Coated Central Venous Catheters (AM-CVCs). I carried out a formal systematic review on the topic to compare the cost-effectiveness of the Central Line (CL) Bundle to the commercially available antimicrobial coated central venous catheters (AM-CVCs) in preventing CLABSIs among critically and chronically ill patients in the U.S. Evidence was assessed for inclusion against predefined criteria. I, myself, conducted the data extraction. Ten studies were included in the review. Efficacy in reducing the mean incidence rate of CLABSI by the CL Bundle and AM-CVC interventions were compared with one another including costs. ^ The AM-CVC impregnated with antibiotics, rifampin-minocycline (AI-RM) is more clinically effective than the CL Bundle in reducing the mean rate of CLABSI per 1,000 catheter days. The lowest mean incidence rate of CLABSI per 1,000 catheter days among the AM-CVC studies was as low as zero in favor of the AI-RM. Moreover, the review revealed that the AI-RM appears to be more cost-effective than the CL Bundle. Results showed the adjusted incremental cost of the CL Bundle per ICU patient requiring a CVC to be approximately $196 while the AI-RM at only an additional cost of $48 per ICU patient requiring a CVC. ^ Limited data regarding the cost of the CL Bundle made it difficult to make a true comparison to the direct cost of the AM-CVCs. However, using the result I did have from this review, I concluded that the AM-CVCs do appear to be more cost-effective in decreasing the mean rate of CLABSI while also minimizing incremental costs per CVC than the CL Bundle. This review calls for further research addressing the cost of the CL Bundle and compliance and more effective study designs such as randomized control trials comparing the efficacy and cost of the CL Bundle to the AM-CVCs. Barriers that may face health care managers when implementing the CL Bundle or AM-CVCs include additional costs associated with the intervention, educational training and ongoing reinforcement as well as creating a new culture of understanding.^