CONTEXT: Hospital infection control policies that use patient isolation prevent nosocomial transmission of infectious diseases, but may inadvertently lead to patient neglect and errors. OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality of medical care received by patients isolated for infection control. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We identified consecutive adults who were isolated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization or infection at 2 large North American teaching hospitals: a general cohort (patients admitted with all diagnoses between January 1, 1999, and January 1, 2000; n = 78); and a disease-specific cohort (patients admitted with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure between January 1, 1999, and July 1, 2002; n = 72). Two matched controls were selected for each isolated patient (n = 156 general cohort controls and n = 144 disease-specific cohort controls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-of-care measures encompassing processes, outcomes, and satisfaction. Adjustments for study cohort and patient demographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics were conducted using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Isolated and control patients generally had similar baseline characteristics; however, isolated patients were twice as likely as control patients to experience adverse events during their hospitalization (31 vs 15 adverse events per 1000 days; P<.001). This difference in adverse events reflected preventable events (20 vs 3 adverse events per 1000 days; P<.001) as opposed to nonpreventable events (11 vs 12 adverse events per 1000 days; P =.98). Isolated patients were also more likely to formally complain to the hospital about their care than control patients (8% vs 1%; P<.001), to have their vital signs not recorded as ordered (51% vs 31%; P<.001), and more likely to have days with no physician progress note (26% vs 13%; P<.001). No differences in hospital mortality were observed for the 2 groups (17% vs 10%; P =.16). CONCLUSION: Compared with controls, patients isolated for infection control precautions experience more preventable adverse events, express greater dissatisfaction with their treatment, and have less documented care.
CONTEXT: Hospital infection control policies that use patient isolation prevent nosocomial transmission of infectious diseases, but may inadvertently lead to patient neglect and errors. OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality of medical care received by patients isolated for infection control. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We identified consecutive adults who were isolated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization or infection at 2 large North American teaching hospitals: a general cohort (patients admitted with all diagnoses between January 1, 1999, and January 1, 2000; n = 78); and a disease-specific cohort (patients admitted with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure between January 1, 1999, and July 1, 2002; n = 72). Two matched controls were selected for each isolated patient (n = 156 general cohort controls and n = 144 disease-specific cohort controls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-of-care measures encompassing processes, outcomes, and satisfaction. Adjustments for study cohort and patient demographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics were conducted using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Isolated and control patients generally had similar baseline characteristics; however, isolated patients were twice as likely as control patients to experience adverse events during their hospitalization (31 vs 15 adverse events per 1000 days; P<.001). This difference in adverse events reflected preventable events (20 vs 3 adverse events per 1000 days; P<.001) as opposed to nonpreventable events (11 vs 12 adverse events per 1000 days; P =.98). Isolated patients were also more likely to formally complain to the hospital about their care than control patients (8% vs 1%; P<.001), to have their vital signs not recorded as ordered (51% vs 31%; P<.001), and more likely to have days with no physician progress note (26% vs 13%; P<.001). No differences in hospital mortality were observed for the 2 groups (17% vs 10%; P =.16). CONCLUSION: Compared with controls, patients isolated for infection control precautions experience more preventable adverse events, express greater dissatisfaction with their treatment, and have less documented care.
Authors: Eric B Milbrandt; Basil Eldadah; Susan Nayfield; Evan Hadley; Derek C Angus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: J R Zahar; M Garrouste-Orgeas; A Vesin; C Schwebel; A Bonadona; F Philippart; C Ara-Somohano; B Misset; J F Timsit Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-08-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Saul N Weingart; Odelya Pagovich; Daniel Z Sands; Joseph M Li; Mark D Aronson; Roger B Davis; David W Bates; Russell S Phillips Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anthony D Harris; Lisa Pineles; Beverly Belton; J Kristie Johnson; Michelle Shardell; Mark Loeb; Robin Newhouse; Louise Dembry; Barbara Braun; Eli N Perencevich; Kendall K Hall; Daniel J Morgan; Syed K Shahryar; Connie S Price; Joseph J Gadbaw; Marci Drees; Daniel H Kett; L Silvia Muñoz-Price; Jesse T Jacob; Loreen A Herwaldt; Carol A Sulis; Deborah S Yokoe; Lisa Maragakis; Matthew E Lissauer; Marcus J Zervos; David K Warren; Robin L Carver; Deverick J Anderson; David P Calfee; Jason E Bowling; Nasia Safdar Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Charlesnika T Evans; Jennifer N Hill; Marylou Guihan; Amy Chin; Barry Goldstein; Michael S A Richardson; Vicki Anderson; Kathleen Risa; Susan Kellie; Kenzie A Cameron Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 1.985