Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:57:45.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevalence and Predictors of Compliance with Discontinuation of Airborne Isolation in Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Tuberculosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Benjamin S. Thomas ,
Erlaine F. Bello  and
Todd B. Seto
Benjamin S. Thomas*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri
Erlaine F. Bello
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii Queen's Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawai
Todd B. Seto
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii Queen's Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawai Native Hawaiian Health, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
*
Washington University School of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8051, Saint Louis, MO 63110 (bthomas@dom.wustl.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Examine the use of airborne isolation by identifying reasons for nontimely discontinuation and predictors of compliance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Compliance with guidelines should result in timely (within 48 hours) discontinuation of isolation in patients without infectious pulmonary tuberculosis (TB).

Design.

Retrospective, observational study.

Setting.

A private, university-affiliated, tertiary-care medical center.

Patients.

All patients in airborne isolation for suspected pulmonary TB from June through December 2011.

Method.

Chart reviews were performed to identify airborne isolation practices and delayed (greater than 48 hours) or very delayed (greater than 72 hours) discontinuation. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression to determine independent predictors of nontimely discontinuation of isolation.

Results.

We identified 113 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 59.8 ± 17.7 years; male sex, 75.2%; white race, 15.9%; mean collection interval ± standard deviation, 21.4 ± 12.9 hours). Delayed and very delayed isolation discontinuation was noted in 81% and 49% of patients, respectively. No significant differences in demographic characteristics and clinical characteristics were identified between groups. Predictors of timely (within 48 hours) airborne isolation discontinuation included use of alternate diagnosis for discontinuation of isolation (P = .02), early infectious diseases (ID) consultation (P = .03), pulmonary consultation (P = .02), average sputum collection interval less than 24 hours (P = .03), and need for more than 1 induced sputum specimen (P = .05). Adjusting for potential confounders, pulmonary consultation (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)], 0.14 [0.03-0.58]), alternate diagnosis for discontinuation of isolation (OR [95% CI], 4.5 [1.3-15.8]), and early ID consultation (OR [95% CI], 4.0 [1.1-14.8]) were independently associated with timely discontinuation.

Conclusions.

Timely airborne isolation discontinuation occurs in only 18.6% of cases and is an opportunity for cost savings, improved efficiency, and potentially patient safety and satisfaction.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 34 , Issue 9 , September 2013 , pp. 967 - 972
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2013

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.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in tuberculosis—United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:333–337.Google Scholar
2.Jensen, PA, Lambert, LA, Iademarco, MF, Ridzon, R; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005;54(RR-17):1–141.Google Scholar
3.Stelfox, HT, Bates, DW, Redelmeier, DA. Safety of patients isolated for infection control. JAMA 2003;290:1899–1905.Google Scholar
4.Abad, C, Fearday, A, Safdar, N. Adverse effects of isolation in hospitalised patients: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2010;76: 97–102.Google Scholar
5.Gasink, LB, Singer, K, Fishman, NO, et al. Contact isolation for infection control in hospitalized patients: is patient satisfaction affected? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:275–278.Google Scholar
6.Wilkins, EG, Ellis, ME, Dunbar, EM, Gibbs, A. Does isolation of patients with infections induce mental illness? J Infect 1988; 17: 43–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Catalano, G, Houston, SH, Catalano, MC, et al.Anxiety and depression in hospitalized patients in resistant organism isolation. South Med J 2003;96:141–145.Google Scholar
8.Gammon, J. Analysis of the stressful effects of hospitalisation and source isolation on coping and psychological constructs. Int J Nurs Pract 1998;4:84–96.Google Scholar
9.Greenaway, C, Menzies, D, Fanning, A, Grewal, R, Yuan, L, FitzGerald, JM. Delay in diagnosis among hospitalized patients with active tuberculosis—predictors and outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165(7):927–933.Google Scholar
10.Rozovsky-Weinberger, J, Parada, JP, Phan, L, et al.Delays in suspicion and isolation among hospitalized persons with pulmonary tuberculosis at public and private US hospitals during 1996 to 1999. Chest 2005;127:205–212.Google Scholar
11.Wu, YC, Hsu, GJ, Chuang, KY, Lin, RS. Intervals before tuberculosis diagnosis and isolation at a regional hospital in Taiwan. / Formos Med Assoc 2007;106:1007–1012.Google Scholar
12.Tsai, TC, Hung, MS, Chen, IC, Chew, G, Lee, WH. Delayed diagnosis of active pulmonary tuberculosis in emergency department. Am J Emerg Med 2008;26:888–892.Google Scholar
13.Hsieh, MJ, Liang, HW, Chiang, PC, et al.Delayed suspicion, treatment and isolation of tuberculosis patients in pulmonology/infectious diseases and non-pulmonology/infectious diseases wards. J Formos Med Assoc 2009;108:202–209.Google Scholar
14.Lin, CY, Lin, WR, Chen, TC, et al. Why is in-hospital diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis delayed in southern Taiwan? J Formos Med Assoc 2010;109:269–277.Google Scholar
15.Kirkland, KB, Weinstein, JM. Adverse effects of contact isolation. Lancet 1999;354:1177–1178.Google Scholar
16.Saint, S, Higgins, LA, Nallamothu, BK, Chenoweth, C. Do physicians examine patients in contact isolation less frequently? a brief report. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:354–356.Google Scholar
17.Shrestha, NK, Bhaskaran, A, Scalera, NM, Schmitt, SK, Rehm, SJ, Gordon, SM. Contribution of infectious disease consultation toward the care of inpatients being considered for community-based parenteral anti-infective therapy. J Hosp Med 2012;7:365–369.Google Scholar
18.Honda, H, Krauss, MJ, Jones, JC, Olsen, MA, Warren, DK. The value of infectious diseases consultation in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Am J Med 2010;123:631–637.Google Scholar