American journal of infection control · 2026
Optimizing hospital admission screening for Candidozyma auris: Comparative cost-impact of workflow strategies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rosa Rossana, Manzanillo Kelley, Dinh Huy, Martinez Octavio V, Somani Jyoti, Abbo Lilian M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The economic impact of different testing strategies for Candidozyma auris colonization in at risk patients on hospital admission has not been extensively described. We present cost-savings estimates with different C auris testing workflows.
METHODS: This study was conducted across an integrated health system with a well-established 2-step admission screening process. Test turnaround time, duration of isolation precautions, and costs were compared between performing a laboratory-developed PCR (LDT), utilizing a commercially available PCR kit (Kit), and sending samples to an off-site reference laboratory. Data for the LDT and the Kit were collected from March to September 2025, and a historical cohort was used for the off-site test (August 2019 to July 2021).
RESULTS: A total of 2,407 patients underwent testing during the contemporary cohort, and 589 in the historical cohort. The median time from admission to PCR result was 27.0 hours for the LDT and the Kit, and 11 days for the off-site test. The highest cost-savings per year were estimated between $1,173,989.54-$4,921,343.92 when performing the PCR Kit twice daily.
CONCLUSIONS: Admission screening workflows for C auris with rapid turnaround time can streamline operational implementation of infection prevention strategies while delivering cost-effective solutions for health systems.
METHODS: This study was conducted across an integrated health system with a well-established 2-step admission screening process. Test turnaround time, duration of isolation precautions, and costs were compared between performing a laboratory-developed PCR (LDT), utilizing a commercially available PCR kit (Kit), and sending samples to an off-site reference laboratory. Data for the LDT and the Kit were collected from March to September 2025, and a historical cohort was used for the off-site test (August 2019 to July 2021).
RESULTS: A total of 2,407 patients underwent testing during the contemporary cohort, and 589 in the historical cohort. The median time from admission to PCR result was 27.0 hours for the LDT and the Kit, and 11 days for the off-site test. The highest cost-savings per year were estimated between $1,173,989.54-$4,921,343.92 when performing the PCR Kit twice daily.
CONCLUSIONS: Admission screening workflows for C auris with rapid turnaround time can streamline operational implementation of infection prevention strategies while delivering cost-effective solutions for health systems.