ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) are an increasing cause of admission in the self-pay population. We previously reported that patients with ABSSSI discharged to receive dalbavancin showed a decreased length of stay (LOS) and total direct costs without increasing 30-day readmission rate. For patients who are financially eligible, a dalbavancin vial replacement program can offset costs. The objective of this study was to determine cost differences in treating ABSSSI in self-pay inpatients discharged to receive dalbavancin compared to standard of care (SOC). METHODS: This retrospective cohort within a community health system compared self-pay adult inpatients with ABSSSI from February 3, 2016 to August 5, 2019 discharged to receive dalbavancin at an outpatient infusion center with SOC intravenous antibiotics. Patients were included with cellulitis, abscess, or postoperative wound infections diagnoses on the basis of International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. Excluded populations were patients without dalbavancin vial replacement performed, pregnant, infections caused exclusively by gram-negative bacteria or fungi, or ICD-10 codes not consistent with ABSSSI. The primary outcome was direct cost of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, adverse events (AE), and indirect hospital costs. On the basis of previous studies, a one-sided Student's t test was performed on financial data. RESULTS: Twelve dalbavancin and 263 SOC patients met inclusion criteria. Direct cost ($2758 vs $4010, p = 0.105) and indirect hospital cost ($2913 vs $3646 , p = 0.162) per patient were less in the dalbavancin group. There was no significant difference between median LOS (4 vs 4, p = 0.888), AE (0% vs 14.8%), and 30-day readmission rates for dalbavancin vs SOC group (8.3% vs 7.2%, p = 0.604). CONCLUSION: Self-pay patients with ABSSSI discharged to receive dalbavancin with vial replacement resulted in decreased direct and indirect costs per patient with similar 30-day readmission rates, AE, and LOS. More studies targeted toward this population are warranted to determine ultimate benefit.
ABSTRACT
Social media is increasingly utilized as a resource in healthcare. We sought to identify perceptions of using social media as an educational tool among healthcare practitioners. An electronic survey was distributed to healthcare administrators, nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, physicians, and physician assistants f hospital systems and affiliated health science schools in Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. Survey questions evaluated respondents' use and views of social media for educational purposes and workplace accessibility using a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Nurses (75%), pharmacists (11%), and administrators (7%) were the most frequent respondents. Facebook® (27%), Pinterest® (17%), and Instagram® (17%) were the most frequently accessed social media platforms. Nearly 85% agreed or strongly agreed that social media can be an effective tool for educational purposes. Among those who had social media platforms, 43.0% use them for educational purposes. Pinterest® (30%), Facebook® (22%), LinkedIn® (16%), and Twitter® (14%) were most frequently used for education. About 50% of respondents had limited or no access to social media at work. Administrators, those with unlimited and limited work access, and respondents aged 20-29 and 30-39 years were more likely to agree that social media is an educational tool (OR: 3.41 (95% CI 1.31 to 8.84), 4.18 (95% CI 2.30 to 7.60), 1.66 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.25), 4.40 (95% CI 2.80 to 6.92), 2.14 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.01) respectively). Residents, physicians, and those with unlimited access were less likely to agree with allowing social media access at work for educational purposes only. Healthcare practitioners frequently utilize social media, and many believe it can be an effective educational tool in healthcare.
