Browsing by keyword "Contact Tracing"
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
-
Impact of Bordetella pertussis exposures on a Massachusetts tertiary care medical systemOBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of outbreaks of Bordetella pertussis infection on a tertiary care medical system. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Academic tertiary care medical center and affiliated ambulatory care settings. SUBJECTS: All patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) who were in close contact with patients with laboratory-confirmed cases of B. pertussis infection from October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. INTERVENTION: Direct and indirect medical center costs were determined, including low and high estimates of time expended in the evaluation and management of exposed patients and HCWs during outbreak investigations of laboratory-confirmed cases of B. pertussis infection. RESULTS: During this period, 20 primary and 3 secondary laboratory-confirmed cases of B. pertussis infection occurred, with 2 primary pertussis cases and 1 secondary case occurring in HCWs. Outbreak investigations prompted screening of 353 medical center employees. Probable or definitive exposure was identified for 296 HCWs, and 287 subsequently received treatment or prophylaxis for B. pertussis infection. Direct medical center costs for treatment and prophylaxis were $13,416 and costs for personnel time were $19,500-$31,190. Indirect medical center costs for time lost from work were $51,300-$52,300. The total cost of these investigations was estimated to be $85,066-$98,456. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent B. pertussis exposures had a major impact on our facility. Given the impact of exposures on healthcare institutions, routine vaccination for HCWs may be beneficial.
-
The cost-effectiveness of screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of the literatureBACKGROUND: An important consideration in determining whether to implement or continue a program to screen men for chlamydia is its cost-effectiveness. A review of the literature on the cost-effectiveness of screening men for chlamydia could potentially provide guidance. METHODS: An Ovid Medline search was conducted for articles published between 1990 and July 2007 using terms for cost, chlamydia, and male. This search returned 175 articles; 25 were retained after eliminating those not relevant to cost-effectiveness studies of male chlamydia screening. We added 4 articles that were in-press or are published in this issue, for a total of 29. These articles were examined for common themes and their results summarized. RESULTS: The reviewed studies examined both proactive and opportunistic screening and included screening of risk groups and of the general population. Some older studies included enzyme immunoassays; more recent studies featured nucleic acid amplification assays. Six studies used dynamic transmission models. Fourteen studies analyzed male and female chlamydia screening interventions. Several contained sufficient data to examine the cost-effectiveness of male screening compared with female screening. Male screening was preferred to expanded female screening in 1 study. In other studies, combined male and female screening programs were cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: Studies comparing chlamydia screening in men with chlamydia screening in women may be the most useful for guidance to programs. The studies which compare the 2 generally have found that screening men from the general population is not preferred to screening women from the general population, although 1 study found that screening of men from risk groups can be cost-effective compared with screening women from the general population.
