Literature DB >> 18926600

Containment effectiveness of expedient patient isolation units.

David L Johnson1, Robert A Lynch, Kenneth R Mead.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is generally recognized that the health care system does not have adequate isolation capacity to meet the surge in demand during a major outbreak of airborne infectious disease. Alternatives to engineered isolation rooms undoubtedly will be required as surge isolation requirements exceed the available resources. The purpose of this work was to estimate containment efficiency of expedient airborne infectious isolation units with and without anterooms in the absence and presence of care provider traffic.
METHODS: Fluorescent 2-microm aerosol particles were released into the interior of expedient-construction isolation modules exhausted with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)-filtered fan unit. Particle concentrations inside and outside the enclosure were measured with and without provider traffic simulated with a mannequin. Measurements were obtained on modules constructed with and without an anteroom, which was not separately ventilated.
RESULTS: Containment estimates were excellent for all isolation configurations evaluated, generally exceeding 99.7%. Particle escape was statistically significantly higher with simulated traffic than without; however, there was no statistically significant difference in particle escape with and without an anteroom.
CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that effective isolation may be possible using low-technology, low-cost, easily built structures that can be readily constructed within hospital and other environments in emergency response situations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18926600     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.05.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Infect Control        ISSN: 0196-6553            Impact factor:   2.918


  5 in total

1.  Different types of door-opening motions as contributing factors to containment failures in hospital isolation rooms.

Authors:  Julian W Tang; Andre Nicolle; Jovan Pantelic; Christian A Klettner; Ruikun Su; Petri Kalliomaki; Pekka Saarinen; Hannu Koskela; Kari Reijula; Panu Mustakallio; David K W Cheong; Chandra Sekhar; Kwok Wai Tham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  The Effectiveness of the Anteroom (Vestibule) Area on Hospital Infection Control and Health Staff Safety: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Elham Andalib; Masoumeh Faghani; Seyyed Mahdi Zia Ziabari; Mohammad Shenagari; Hamid Salehiniya; Mohammad Hossein Keivanlou; Zahra Rafat
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-04-26

3.  Implementing a negative-pressure isolation ward for a surge in airborne infectious patients.

Authors:  Shelly L Miller; Nicholas Clements; Steven A Elliott; Shobha S Subhash; Aaron Eagan; Lewis J Radonovich
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 2.918

4.  Modeling hospital energy and economic costs for COVID-19 infection control interventions.

Authors:  Marietta M Squire; Megashnee Munsamy; Gary Lin; Arnesh Telukdarie; Takeru Igusa
Journal:  Energy Build       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 7.201

5.  Potential airborne pathogen transmission in a hospital with and without surge control ventilation system modifications.

Authors:  Francis J Offermann; Aaron Eagan; Aidan C Offermann; Shobha S Subhash; Shelly L Miller; Lewis J Radonovich
Journal:  Build Environ       Date:  2016-06-25       Impact factor: 6.456

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.