OBJECTIVE: Contact precautions decrease healthcare worker-patient contact and may impact patient satisfaction. To determine the association between contact precautions and patient satisfaction, we used a standardized interview for perceived issues with care. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of inpatients, evaluated at admission and on hospital days 3, 7, and 14 (until discharged). At each point, patients underwent a standardized interview to identify perceived problems with care. After discharge, the standardized interview and Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey were administered by telephone. Responses were recorded, transcribed, and coded by 2 physician reviewers. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 528 medical or surgical patients not admitted to the intensive care unit. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients were included in the primary analysis, of whom 104 (20%) perceived some issue with their care. On multivariable logistic regression, contact precautions were independently associated with a greater number of perceived concerns with care (odds ratio, 2.05 [95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.21]; P < .01), including poor coordination of care (P = .02) and a lack of respect for patient needs and preferences (P = .001). Eighty-eight patients were included in the secondary analysis of HCAHPS. Patients under contact precautions did not have different HCAHPS scores than those not under contact precautions (odds ratio, 1.79 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-5.00]; P = .27). CONCLUSIONS: Patients under contact precautions were more likely to perceive problems with their care, especially poor coordination of care and a lack of respect for patient preferences.
OBJECTIVE: Contact precautions decrease healthcare worker-patient contact and may impact patient satisfaction. To determine the association between contact precautions and patient satisfaction, we used a standardized interview for perceived issues with care. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of inpatients, evaluated at admission and on hospital days 3, 7, and 14 (until discharged). At each point, patients underwent a standardized interview to identify perceived problems with care. After discharge, the standardized interview and Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey were administered by telephone. Responses were recorded, transcribed, and coded by 2 physician reviewers. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 528 medical or surgical patients not admitted to the intensive care unit. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients were included in the primary analysis, of whom 104 (20%) perceived some issue with their care. On multivariable logistic regression, contact precautions were independently associated with a greater number of perceived concerns with care (odds ratio, 2.05 [95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.21]; P < .01), including poor coordination of care (P = .02) and a lack of respect for patient needs and preferences (P = .001). Eighty-eight patients were included in the secondary analysis of HCAHPS. Patients under contact precautions did not have different HCAHPS scores than those not under contact precautions (odds ratio, 1.79 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-5.00]; P = .27). CONCLUSIONS:Patients under contact precautions were more likely to perceive problems with their care, especially poor coordination of care and a lack of respect for patient preferences.
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: H R Day; E N Perencevich; A D Harris; S S Himelhoch; C H Brown; A L Gruber-Baldini; E Dotter; D J Morgan Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: R Monina Klevens; Jonathan R Edwards; Chesley L Richards; Teresa C Horan; Robert P Gaynes; Daniel A Pollock; Denise M Cardo Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Stephen G Weber; Susan S Huang; Shannon Oriola; W Charles Huskins; Gary A Noskin; Kathleen Harriman; Russell N Olmsted; Marc Bonten; Tammy Lundstrom; Michael W Climo; Mary-Claire Roghmann; Cathryn L Murphy; Tobi B Karchmer Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2007-02-07 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Leanne B Gasink; Karyn Singer; Neil O Fishman; William C Holmes; Mark G Weiner; Warren B Bilker; Ebbing Lautenbach Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Joel S Weissman; Eric C Schneider; Saul N Weingart; Arnold M Epstein; Joann David-Kasdan; Sandra Feibelmann; Catherine L Annas; Nancy Ridley; Leslie Kirle; Constantine Gatsonis Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Heather L Evans; Mary M Shaffer; Michael G Hughes; Robert L Smith; Tae W Chong; Daniel P Raymond; Shawn J Pelletier; Timothy L Pruett; Robert G Sawyer Journal: Surgery Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Lindsay D Croft; Michael Liquori; James Ladd; Hannah Day; Lisa Pineles; Elizabeth Lamos; Ryan Arnold; Preeti Mehrotra; Jeffrey C Fink; Patricia Langenberg; Linda Simoni-Wastila; Eli Perencevich; Anthony D Harris; Daniel J Morgan Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: R Nair; E N Perencevich; M Goto; D J Livorsi; E Balkenende; E Kiscaden; M L Schweizer Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Carol E Muenks; Whitney C Sewell; Patrick G Hogan; Ryley M Thompson; David G Ross; Jeffrey W Wang; John J Morelli; Sarah J Gehlert; Stephanie A Fritz Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Elise M Martin; Dana Russell; Zachary Rubin; Romney Humphries; Tristan R Grogan; David Elashoff; Daniel Z Uslan Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 3.254