Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T23:00:34.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Attempt To Make an Issue Less Murky: A Comparison of Four Systems for Infection Precautions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Marguerite M. Jackson  and
Patricia Lynch
Marguerite M. Jackson*
Affiliation:
Medical Center Epidemiology Unit, the University of California San Diego, San Diego, California
Patricia Lynch
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Department, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
*
Epidemiology Unit, University of California San Diego Medical Center, 225 Dickinson St 8951, San Diego, CA 92103-1990
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Birnbaum and others' recently published an article about adoption of guidelines for Universal Precautions (UP) and Body Substance Isolation (BSI) in Canadian acute-care hospitals. The authors pointed out that terminology was used inconsistently among the Canadian hospitals and that there was considerable confusion about the meaning of different terms.

As two of the developers of the BSI system, we have been impressed that the philosophical differences among the isolation systems are also misinterpreted by many. The primary purpose of an isolation system, and why and when and it is implemented, form the bases for the philosophical differences among the different systems. Failing to understand the fundamental differences leads practitioners incorrectly to apply the methods of the system in use at their facilities and also leads to inconsistency in practice among healthcare workers.

The primary purpose of BSI is to reduce risks to patients of cross-transmission of microorganisms via hands of healthcare workers. A secondary benefit of BSI is to protect the healthcare worker from microorganisms harbored by patients. The system is based on three fundamental premises.

Type
Readers' Forum
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 12 , Issue 7 , July 1991 , pp. 448 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1991

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. Birnbaum, D, Schulzer, M, Mathias, RG, Kelly, M, Chow, AW. Adoption of guidelines for universal precautions and body substance isolation in Canadian acute-care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:465–472.Google Scholar
2. Jackson, MM, Lynch, F! Infection control: too much or too little? Am J Nurs. 1984;84:208–210.Google Scholar
3. Lynch, P, Jackson, MM, Cummings, MJ, Stamm, WE. Rethinking the role of isolation practices in the prevention of nosocomial infections. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:243–246.Google Scholar
4. Jackson, MM, Lynch, P, McPherson, DC, Cummings, MJ, Greenawalt, NG. Why not treat all body substances as infectious? Am J Nun. 1987;87:1137–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. McPherson, DC, Jackson, MM, Rogers, JC. Evaluating the cost of the body substance isolation system. Journal of Healthcare Materiel Management. 1988;6:20–28.Google Scholar
6. Lynch, P, Cummings, MJ, Roberts, PL, Herriott, MJ, Yates, B, Stamm, WE. Implementing and evaluating a system of generic infection precautions: body substance isolation. Am J Infect Control. 1990;18:1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Centers for Disease Control. Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in healthcare settings. MMWR. 1987;36(suppl 2):S3–18S.Google Scholar
8. Centers for Disease Control. Update: universal precautions for prevention of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus and other bloodborne pathogens in healthcare settings. MMWR. 1988;37:377–388.Google Scholar
9. Garner, JS, Simmons, BP Centers for Disease Control guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Infect Control. 1983;4:245–325.Google ScholarPubMed