An evaluation of the impact of Inner City Development's Cooperative Home School: An educational alternative program to increase the quality and level of education in San Antonio's West Side community

The research study was intended to evaluate the effectiveness of Inner City Development's (I.C.D.) Cooperative Home School, an educational alternative program to the Title I public schools of San Antonio's West Side community. The study investigated students', parents' and tutors' perception of parental involvement and educational resources. The study also investigated each student's academic achievement. ^ The study found that students progressed toward expected math proficiency at a faster rate than they did in reading proficiency. However, because the target population size was small and a comparison group was not used, the results of this study are only suggestive. This research also indicated that study subjects believed students' quality and level of education increased substantially since program exposure. Study subjects mainly attributed the students' strides in academic performance to the increased amount of individualized attention students received in the small twelve-student class size. Study subjects were more satisfied with the home school's educational resources than those of the Title I public schools. Study subjects also perceived that parental involvement both at home and at school increased since enrollment in the home school program because: (1) there were more opportunities for involvement in the home school; and (2) parents felt closer to the tutors than the teachers in public school. ^ This evaluation also suggested improvements to program operations. With the help of additional volunteers, I.C.D. program operators could improve collection and organization of academic records. Furthermore, as suggested by program participants, science could be added to the curriculum. Lastly, a formal tutor orientation could be implemented to familiarize and train tutors on classroom management procedures. ^

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.^