Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-m7vrx Total loading time: 0.238 Render date: 2022-12-09T17:17:38.812Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

The Effect of Contact Precautions on Frequency of Hospital Adverse Events

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2015

Lindsay D. Croft
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Michael Liquori
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland Veterans’ Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, Baltimore, Maryland
James Ladd
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Hannah Day
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Lisa Pineles
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Elizabeth Lamos
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland
Ryan Arnold
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland
Preeti Mehrotra
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Jeffrey C. Fink
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Veterans’ Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, Baltimore, Maryland
Patricia Langenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Linda Simoni-Wastila
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland
Eli Perencevich
Affiliation:
Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa Iowa City Veterans’ Affairs Health Care System, Iowa City, Iowa
Anthony D. Harris
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Veterans’ Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, Baltimore, Maryland
Daniel J. Morgan*
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Veterans’ Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, Baltimore, Maryland
*
Address correspondence to Daniel J. Morgan, MD, MS, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 685 W. Baltimore St. MSTF 334, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (dmorgan@epi.umaryland.edu).

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether use of contact precautions on hospital ward patients is associated with patient adverse events

DESIGN

Individually matched prospective cohort study

SETTING

The University of Maryland Medical Center, a tertiary care hospital in Baltimore, Maryland

METHODS

A total of 296 medical or surgical inpatients admitted to non–intensive care unit hospital wards were enrolled at admission from January to November 2010. Patients on contact precautions were individually matched by hospital unit after an initial 3-day length of stay to patients not on contact precautions. Adverse events were detected by physician chart review and categorized as noninfectious, preventable and severe noninfectious, and infectious adverse events during the patient’s stay using the standardized Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Global Trigger Tool.

RESULTS

The cohort of 148 patients on contact precautions at admission was matched with a cohort of 148 patients not on contact precautions. Of the total 296 subjects, 104 (35.1%) experienced at least 1 adverse event during their hospital stay. Contact precautions were associated with fewer noninfectious adverse events (rate ratio [RtR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.95; P=.02) and although not statistically significant, with fewer severe adverse events (RtR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46–1.03; P=.07). Preventable adverse events did not significantly differ between patients on contact precautions and patients not on contact precautions (RtR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.59–1.24; P=.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital ward patients on contact precautions were less likely to experience noninfectious adverse events during their hospital stay than patients not on contact precautions.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;36(11):1268–1274

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© 2015 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Siegel, J, Rhinehart, E, Jackson, M, Chiarello, L, Health Care Infection Control Practices Committee. 2007 guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:S65S164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Griffin, F, Resar, R. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. IHI global trigger tool for measuring adverse events. Institute for Healthcare Improvement Innovation Series White Paper. http://www.ihi.org/knowledge/pages/IHIWhitePapers/IHIGlobalTriggerToolWhitePaper.aspx. Published 2009. Accessed March 2014.Google Scholar
3. Landrigan, C, Parry, G, Bones, C, Hackbarth, A, Goldmann, D, Sharek, P. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med 2010;363:21242134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Goodman, J, Villarreal, P, Jones, B. The social cost of adverse medical events, and what we can do about it. Health Aff 2011;30:590595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Kohn, LT, Corrigan, JM, Donaldson, MS, eds.; Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press. www.iom.edu/Reports/1999/to-err-is-human-building-a-safer-health-system.aspx. Published 2000. Accessed March 2014.Google Scholar
6. Kirkland, KB, Weinstein, JM. Adverse effects of contact isolation. Lancet 1999;354:11771178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Morgan, DJ, Pineles, L, Shardell, M, et al. The effect of contact precautions on healthcare worker activity in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:6973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Morgan, DJ, Diekema, DJ, Sepkowitz, K, Perencevich, EN. Adverse outcomes associated with contact precautions: a review of the literature. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:8593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Stelfox, H, Bates, D, Redelmeier, D. Safety of patients isolated for infection control. JAMA 2003;290:18991905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Karki, S, Leder, K, Cheng, AC. Patients under contact precautions have an increased risk of injuries and medication errors: a retrospective cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:11181120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Zahar, JR, Garrouste-Orgeas, M, Vesin, A, et al. Impact of contact isolation for multidrug-resistant organisms on the occurrence of medical errors and adverse events. Intensive Care Med 2013;39:21532160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Day, H, Perencevich, E, Harris, A, et al. Depression, anxiety, and moods of hospitalized patients under contact precautions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:251258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Mehrotra, P, Croft, L, Day, HR, Perencevich, EN, Pineles, L, Harris, AD, Weingart, SN, Morgan, DJ. Effects of contact precautions on patient perception of care and satisfaction: a prospective cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:10871093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Naessens, JM, O’Byrne, TJ, Johnson, MG, Vansuch, MB, McGlone, CM, Huddleston, JM. Measuring hospital adverse events: Assessing inter-rater reliability and trigger performance of the global trigger tool. Int J Qual Health Care 2010;22:266274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Classen, DC, Resar, R, Griffin, F, Federico, F, et al. ‘Global trigger tool’ shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff 2011;30:581589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Harris, AD, Pineles, L, Belton, B, et al. Benefits of Universal Glove and Gown (BUGG) Investigators. Universal glove and gown use and acquisition of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the ICU: a randomized trial. JAMA 2013;310:15711580.Google ScholarPubMed
17. National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) Index for Categorizing Medication Errors. http://www.nccmerp.org/medErrorCatIndex.html. Published 2001. Accessed March 2014.Google Scholar
18. Rothschild, JM, Landrigan, CP, Cronin, JW, et al. The Critical Care Safety Study: the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care. Crit Care Med 2005;33:16941700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Sharek, PJ, Parry, G, Goldmann, D, et al. Performance characteristics of a methodology to quantify adverse events over time in hospitalized patients. Health Serv Res 2011;46:654678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Masse, V, Louis, Valiquette, Boukhoudmi, S, et al. Impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus contact isolation units on medical care. PLoS One 2013;8:e57057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Naessens, J, Campbell, C, Huddleston, J, et al. A comparison of hospital adverse events identified by three widely used detection methods. Int J Qual Health Care 2009;21:301307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Ho, PL, Hong Kong Intensive Care Unit Antimicrobial Resistance Study (HK-ICARE) Group. Carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative bacilli, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci before and after intensive care unit admission. Crit Care Med 2003;31:11751182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Dequito, AB, Mol, PG, van Doormaal, JE, et al. Preventable and non-preventable adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a prospective chart review in the Netherlands. Drug Saf 2011;34:10891100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Baines, RJ, Langelaan, M, de Bruijne, MC, et al. Changes in adverse event rates in hospitals over time: a longitudinal retrospective patient record review study. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:290298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Kolata, G. Doctors strive to do less harm. The New York Times website. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/health/doctors-strive-to-do-less-harm-by-inattentive-care.html. Published February 17, 2015. Accessed February 18, 2015.Google Scholar
26. Classen, DC, Lloyd, RC, Provost, L, Griffin, FA, Resar, R. Development and evaluation of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement global trigger tool. J Patient Saf 2008;4:169177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Effect of Contact Precautions on Frequency of Hospital Adverse Events
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Effect of Contact Precautions on Frequency of Hospital Adverse Events
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Effect of Contact Precautions on Frequency of Hospital Adverse Events
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *