Observational studyAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2026
A prospective, observational, cost of implementation analysis for the National Infection Surveillance Program for Aged Care (NISPAC).
Observational study in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Infection Surveillance Program for Aged Care (NISPAC) is a new standardised and streamlined infection and antimicrobial use surveillance tool for Australian Residential Aged Care Homes (RACHs). As a part of the program development and implementation, it was identified that the cost of NISPAC implementation in Australian RACHs was currently unknown, and the objective of this study was to determine this cost from the perspective of the Australian Aged Care setting.
methodsThe cost of implementation included those of the three coordinating bodies, as well as the individual RACHs who participated in the NISPAC program implementation. Development and implementation resources and costs for the coordinating bodies were determined over a 3 year period and then attributed equally across the participating RACHs. Participating RACHs (n = 69) reported the resources and cost of NISPAC implementation over a 5 month period, and this included salary and non-salary costs (2 months pre-implementation and 3 months of implementation). Costs for the participating RACHs were added to the costs of the coordinating bodies to determine the total cost per RACH. The price year for the analysis was 2024.
resultsThe total implementation cost for the three coordinating bodies was $AUD1,869,279, resulting in a mean cost attributed per RACH of $AUD27,091 (SD $AUD0). The mean cost of RACH staff time for the intervention during the pre-implementation planning phase was $276.18 (SD $AUD219.55), and during the implementation phase was $AUD1,146.47 ($AUD1,003.48). The mean cost of NISPAC implementation per RACH was $AUD28,805 (SD $AUD1,137).
conclusionThe novel NISPAC was a relatively low-cost infection and antimicrobial use surveillance program to implement in RACHs. Future studies are required to establish the cost-effectiveness of the program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.