Putting contact precautions in their place

Patient care experience with utilization of isolation precautions: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of isolation precautions (IP) may represent a trade-off between reduced transmission of infectious pathogens and reduced patient satisfaction with their care.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify if and how IPs impact patients' care experiences.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PsychInfo, HSRProj and Cochrane Library databases.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Interventional and observational studies published January 1990 to May 2019 were eligible for inclusion.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients admitted to an acute-care facility.

INTERVENTIONS

IPs versus no IPs.

METHODS

Six reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text. Experience of care reported by patients using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey was assessed as the outcome for the meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² value.

RESULTS

After screening 7073 titles and abstracts, 15 independent studies were included in the review. Pooling of unadjusted estimates from the HCAHPS survey demonstrated that IP patients were less likely to give top scores on questions pertaining to respect, communication, receiving assistance and cleanliness compared to the no-IP patients. Patients under IP with longer length of stay appeared to have more negative experiences with the care received during their stay compared to no IP.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients under IP were more likely to be dissatisfied with several aspects of patient care compared to patients not under IP. It is crucial to educate patients and healthcare workers in order to balance successful implementation of IP and patient care experiences, particularly in healthcare settings where it may be beneficial.

The discontinuation of contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: Impact upon patient adverse events and hospital operations

BACKGROUND

Contact precautions for endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) are a resource-intensive intervention to reduce healthcare-associated infections, potentially impeding patient throughput and limiting bed availability to isolate other contagious pathogens. We investigated the impact of the discontinuation of contact precautions (DcCP) for endemic MRSA and VRE on patient outcomes and operations metrics in an acute care setting.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, quasi-experimental analysis of the 12 months before and after DcCP for MRSA and VRE at an academic medical centre. The frequency for bed closures due to contact isolation was measured, and personal protective equipment (PPE) expenditures and patient satisfaction survey results were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Using an interrupted time series design, emergency department (ED) admission wait times and rates of patient falls, pressure ulcers and nosocomial MRSA and VRE clinical isolates were compared using GEEs.

RESULTS

Prior to DcCP, bed closures for MRSA and/or VRE isolation were associated with estimated lost hospital charges of $9383 per 100 bed days (95% CI: 8447 to 10 318). No change in ED wait times or change in trend was observed following DcCP. There were significant reductions in monthly expenditures on gowns (-61.0%) and gloves (-16.3%). Patient satisfaction survey results remained stable. No significant changes in rates or trends were observed for patient falls or pressure ulcers. Incidence rates of nosocomial MRSA (1.58 (95% CI: 0.82 to 3.04)) and VRE (1.02 (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.27)) did not significantly change.

CONCLUSIONS

DcCP was associated with an increase in bed availability and revenue recovery, and a reduction in PPE expenditures. Benefits for other hospital operations metrics and patient outcomes were not identified.