Skip to main content

Table 3 Results table

From: Fast and expensive (PCR) or cheap and slow (culture)? A mathematical modelling study to explore screening for carbapenem resistance in UK hospitals

Screening algorithm

Scenario

Outcomes

Speciality

Screening coverage

CP-CRE prevalence

Number of “days at risk”

Total isolation bed days

Total isolation bed days of patients without CP-CRE

Cost per risk day averted (£)

Average incremental cost per additional averted risk day (£)

(A) Direct PCR

ICU

100%

1.6%

90 (4.39)

1500 (19.25)

368 (94.96)

198.45

743.56

63%

1.6%

508 (14.83)

991 (17.98)

244 (72.30)

192.18

712.38

63%

20%

5080 (36.20)

7649 (50.40)

173 (58.47)

58.18

97.10

100%

20%

918 (14.39)

11,834 (49.99)

263 (85.91)

58.69

99.57

(B) Culture +PCR

100%

1.6%

335 (9.31)

910 (17.59)

3 (5.55)

63.05

63%

1.6%

642 (14.06)

600 (15.84)

4 (10.01)

61.38

63%

20%

6664 (42.32)

5955 (38.82)

17 (20.84)

48.09

100%

20%

3308 (24.68)

9282 (53.2)

29 (38.32)

48.44

(C) PHE

100%

1.6%

221 (3.74)

1024 (19.37)

28 (31.95)

83.18

288.63

63%

1.6%

655 (14.00)

623 (17.57)

13 (18.32)

78.69

819.56

63%

20%

5194 (31.49)

7465 (45.2)

17 (21.47)

48.05

47.90

100%

20%

2309 (11.15)

10,287 (51.71)

41 (38.09)

49.68

61.23

  1. The outcomes are given as the mean (standard deviation) from 100 simulations. The cost per risk day averted is the mean total cost divided by the mean number of “days at risk”. Total isolation bed days shown in bold text are greater than the existing total number of isolation bed days available to the ICU at ICHNT