OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of contact precautions on hospital ward patients is associated with patient adverse events DESIGN: Individually matched prospective cohort study SETTING: The University of Maryland Medical Center, a tertiary care hospital in Baltimore, Maryland METHODS: A total of 296 medical or surgical inpatients admitted to non-intensive care unit hospital wards were enrolled at admission from January to November 2010. Patients on contact precautions were individually matched by hospital unit after an initial 3-day length of stay to patients not on contact precautions. Adverse events were detected by physician chart review and categorized as noninfectious, preventable and severe noninfectious, and infectious adverse events during the patient's stay using the standardized Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool. RESULTS: The cohort of 148 patients on contact precautions at admission was matched with a cohort of 148 patients not on contact precautions. Of the total 296 subjects, 104 (35.1%) experienced at least 1 adverse event during their hospital stay. Contact precautions were associated with fewer noninfectious adverse events (rate ratio [RtR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.95; P=.02) and although not statistically significant, with fewer severe adverse events (RtR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46-1.03; P=.07). Preventable adverse events did not significantly differ between patients on contact precautions and patients not on contact precautions (RtR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.59-1.24; P=.41). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital ward patients on contact precautions were less likely to experience noninfectious adverse events during their hospital stay than patients not on contact precautions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of contact precautions on hospital ward patients is associated with patient adverse events DESIGN: Individually matched prospective cohort study SETTING: The University of Maryland Medical Center, a tertiary care hospital in Baltimore, Maryland METHODS: A total of 296 medical or surgical inpatients admitted to non-intensive care unit hospital wards were enrolled at admission from January to November 2010. Patients on contact precautions were individually matched by hospital unit after an initial 3-day length of stay to patients not on contact precautions. Adverse events were detected by physician chart review and categorized as noninfectious, preventable and severe noninfectious, and infectious adverse events during the patient's stay using the standardized Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool. RESULTS: The cohort of 148 patients on contact precautions at admission was matched with a cohort of 148 patients not on contact precautions. Of the total 296 subjects, 104 (35.1%) experienced at least 1 adverse event during their hospital stay. Contact precautions were associated with fewer noninfectious adverse events (rate ratio [RtR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.95; P=.02) and although not statistically significant, with fewer severe adverse events (RtR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46-1.03; P=.07). Preventable adverse events did not significantly differ between patients on contact precautions and patients not on contact precautions (RtR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.59-1.24; P=.41). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital ward patients on contact precautions were less likely to experience noninfectious adverse events during their hospital stay than patients not on contact precautions.
Authors: James M Naessens; Thomas J O'Byrne; Matthew G Johnson; Monica B Vansuch; Corey M McGlone; Jeanne M Huddleston Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 2.038
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: Jeffrey M Rothschild; Christopher P Landrigan; John W Cronin; Rainu Kaushal; Steven W Lockley; Elisabeth Burdick; Peter H Stone; Craig M Lilly; Joel T Katz; Charles A Czeisler; David W Bates Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 7.598
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: James M Naessens; Claudia R Campbell; Jeanne M Huddleston; Bjorn P Berg; John J Lefante; Arthur R Williams; Richard A Culbertson Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Lindsay D Croft; Michael E Liquori; James Ladd; Hannah R Day; Lisa Pineles; Elizabeth M Lamos; Preeti Mehrotra; Eli N Perencevich; Anthony D Harris; Daniel J Morgan Journal: South Med J Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 0.954
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
Authors: Lance R Peterson; Marc O Wright; Jennifer L Beaumont; Vanida Komutanon; Parul A Patel; Donna M Schora; Bryan H Schmitt; Ari Robicsek Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: JaHyun Kang; Eunjeong Ji; Junghee Kim; Hyunok Bae; Eunyoung Cho; Eu Suk Kim; Myoung Jin Shin; Hong Bin Kim Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-03-01
Authors: Luisa C Eggenschwiler; Anne W S Rutjes; Sarah N Musy; Dietmar Ausserhofer; Natascha M Nielen; René Schwendimann; Maria Unbeck; Michael Simon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Geoffrey Taylor; Denise Gravel; Anne Matlow; Joanne Embree; Nicole LeSaux; Lynn Johnston; Kathryn N Suh; Michael John; John Embil; Elizabeth Henderson; Virginia Roth; Alice Wong Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 4.887