Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T18:37:06.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adoption of Guidelines for Universal Precautions and Body Substance Isolation in Canadian Acute-Care Hospitals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

David Birnbaum ,
Michael Schulzer ,
Richard G. Mathias ,
Michael Kelly  and
Anthony W. Chow
David Birnbaum*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Michael Schulzer
Affiliation:
Departments of Statistics and Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Richard G. Mathias
Affiliation:
Department of Healthcare and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Michael Kelly
Affiliation:
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Anthony W. Chow
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
*
Division of Infectious Diseases, G.F. Strong Research Laboratory, Vancouver General Hospital, 2733 Heather Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V5Z 1M9, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The impact of recently recommended hospital infection control guidelines on Canadian acute-care hospitals is unknown. A confidential cross-sectional mailed survey of all acute-care Canadian hospitals was conducted to determine rates of receipt and adoption of published guidelines for Universal Precautions (UP) or Body Substance Isolation (BSI), rationale for adoption and knowledge of costs and benefits. Five hundred and seventy-nine of 943 sites (61%) responded (exceeding 80% in urban centers); 94% among hospitals with at least 300 beds and 57% among those under 300 beds. Seventy-four percent of responders claimed adoption of UP (65%) or BSI (9%), staff protection being their primary motivation. Adoption of either UP or BSI was associated with size (p<.001), increasing progressively from 45% in the smallest group (~25 beds) to 64% in the largest (2500 beds). Many hospitals introduced modifications and some substituted names other than UP or BSI in adopting a new strategy. In practice, UP and BSI now mean different things in different hospitals, and the distinction between them has become blurred. Furthermore, only 5% claiming adoption of a new strategy adopted all of the fundamental policies expected under UP or BSI. Receipt of guidelines was also correlated with size: one-third of hospitals under 200 beds had not received key publications defining UP and BSI. Only 19% claiming adoption of a new strategy indicated knowledge of cost implications. These results suggest a need for closer collaboration among hospitals and government agencies in developing uniform infection control policies, and for systematic evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of new strategies. (Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:465-472.)

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 11 , Issue 9 , September 1990 , pp. 465 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1990

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

1. Garner, JS, Simmons, BP. CDC Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Infect Control. 1983;4:245–325.Google Scholar
2. Bureau of Infection Control, Health & Welfare Canada. Infection Control Guidelines for Isolation and Precaution Techniques. 1985.Google Scholar
3. Votra, EM, Rutala, WA, Sarubbi, FA. Recommendations for pregnant employee interaction with patients haying communicable infectious diseases. An J Infect Control. 1983;11:10–19.10.1016/S0196-6553(83)80008-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Leclair, JM, Freeman, J, Sullivan, BF, Crowley, CM, Goldmann, DA. Prevention of nosocomial respiratory syncytial virus infections through compliance with glove and gown isolation precautions. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:329–334.10.1056/NEJM198708063170601CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Gerberding, JL, Bryant-LeBlanc, CE, Nelson, K, et al. Risk of transmitting the human immunodeficiency virus, cytomegalovirus & hepatitis B virus to healthcare workers exposed to patients with AIDS & AIDS-related conditions. J Infect Dis. 1987;156:1–8.10.1093/infdis/156.1.1Google Scholar
6. Crow, S, Taylor, E. Nurses' compliance with aseptic technique. AORN J. 1983;37:1066–1072.10.1016/S0001-2092(07)64283-5Google Scholar
7. Crow, S, Greene, VW. Aseptic transgressions among surgeons and anesthesiologists. ArchSurg. 1982;117:1012–1016.Google Scholar
8. Haley, RW, Emori, TG. The employee health service and infection control in US hospitals, 1976-1977: managing employee illness. JAMA. 1981;246:962–966.10.1001/jama.1981.03320090024021Google Scholar
9. Fox, MK, Langner, SB, Wells, RW. How good are handwashing practices? Am J Nursing. 1974;74:1676–1678.Google Scholar
10. Albert, RK, Condie, F. Handwashing patterns in medical intensivecare units. N Engl J Med. 1981;304:1465–1466.10.1056/NEJM198106113042404CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Iffy, L, Kaminetzky, HA, Maidman, JE, Lindsey, J, Arrata, WSM. Control of perinatal infection by traditional preventive measures. Obstet Gynecol. 1979;54:403–411.Google Scholar
12. Berkelman, RL, Godley, J, Weber, JA, et al. Pseudomonas cepacia peritonitis associated with contamination of automatic peritoneal dialysis machines. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96:456–458.Google Scholar
13. Vanhegan, RI, Mitchell, RG. Pseudomonas infection associated with contamination of wick-type air freshener. Br Med J. 1975;20:685.10.1136/bmj.3.5985.685Google Scholar
14. Jacobson, JT, Johnson, DS, Ross, CA, Conti, MT, Evans, RS, Burke, JP. Adapting disease-specific isolation guidelines to a hospital information system. Infect Control. 1986;7:411–418.10.1017/S0195941700064651Google Scholar
15. Thomas, M, Hollins, M. Epidemic of postoperative wound infection associated with ungloved abdominal palpation. Lancet. 1974;15:1215–1217.10.1016/S0140-6736(74)91019-8Google Scholar
16. Ryan, JA, Abel, RM, Abbott, WM, et al. Catheter complications in total parenteral nutrition. N Engl J Med. 1974;290:757–761.10.1056/NEJM197404042901401Google Scholar
17. Mayer, JA, Dubbert, PM, Miller, M, Burkett, PA, Chapman, SW. Increasing handwashing in an intensive care unit. Infect Control. 1986;7:259–262.10.1017/S0195941700064171Google Scholar
18. Nosocomial acquisition of Aeromonas hydrophila. National Nosocomial Infections Study Report, Annual Summary 1977. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control; 1979.Google Scholar
19. Centers for Disease Control. Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in health-care settings. MMWR. 1987;36(suppl 2):3S–18S.Google Scholar
20. Canadian Laboratory Centre for Disease Control. Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in health-care settings. CDWR. 1987;13S3:1–10.Google Scholar
21. Center for Disease Control. Update: universal precautions for prevention of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus and other blood-borne pathogens in health-care settings. MMWR. 1988;37:377–388.Google Scholar
22. Canadian Laboratory Centre for Disease Control. Universal precautions: report of a consensus committee meeting. CDWR. 1989;15:23–28.Google Scholar
23. Department of Labor/Department of Health and Human Services. Joint advisory notice: protection against occupational exposure to hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Federal Register. 1987;52(210):41818–41823.Google Scholar
24. Lynch, P, Jackson, M. Isolation practices: how much is too much or not enough? Asepsis. 1986;8:2–5.Google Scholar
25. Lynch, P, Jackson, M, Cummings, MJ, Stamm, WE. Rethinking the role of isolation practices in the prevention of nosocomial infections. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:243–246.10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-243Google Scholar
26. Weinstein, RA, Kabins, SA. Isolation practices in hospitals. Ann Intern Med. 1987;5:781–782.Google Scholar
27. Doebbeling, BN, Pfaller, MA, Houston, AK, et al. Removal of nosocomial pathogens from the contaminated glove, implications for glove reuse and handwashing. Ann Intern Med. 1988;109:394–398.10.7326/0003-4819-109-5-394Google Scholar
28. Celentano, DD, Morlock, LL, Malitz, FE. Diffusion and adoption of CDC guidelines for the prevention and control of nosocomial infections in US hospitals. infect Control. 1987;8:415–423.10.1017/S0195941700066595Google Scholar
29. Cochran, WG. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1977:135, 361.Google Scholar
30. Miettinen, OS. Theoretical Epidemiology, Principles of Occurrence Research in Medicine. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1985:136–137.Google Scholar
31. Rutala, WA Infectious waste—a growing problem. Asepsis. 1987;9:2–6.Google Scholar
32. Hedrick, ER. Infectious waste management-will science prevail? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1988;9:488–490.10.2307/30146543Google Scholar
33. Checko, PJ: Regulation of infectious waste—future perspectives. Journal of Healthcare Material Management. 1989;7:28–31.Google Scholar
34. Canadian Standards Association. Handling of waste materials within health care facilities. CAN/CSA-Z317. 10–88. June 1988.Google Scholar
35. Handsfield, HH, Cummings, MJ, Swenson, PD. Prevalence of antibody to human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B surface antigen in blood samples submitted to a hospital laboratory-implications for handling specimens. JAMA. 1987;258:3395–3397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed