Adverse outcomes associated with Contact Precautions: a review of the literature
- PMID: 19249637
- PMCID: PMC3557494
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.04.257
Adverse outcomes associated with Contact Precautions: a review of the literature
Abstract
Background: Contact Precautions (CP) are a standard method for preventing patient-to-patient transmission of multiple drug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in hospital settings. With the ongoing worldwide concern for MDROs including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and broadened use of active surveillance programs, an increasing number of patients are being placed on CP. Whereas few would argue that CP are an important tool in infection control, many reports and small studies have observed worse noninfectious outcomes in patients on CP. However, no review of this literature exists.
Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature describing adverse outcomes associated with CP. We identified 15 studies published between 1989 and 2008 relating to adverse outcomes from CP. Nine were higher quality based on standardized collection of data and/or inclusion of control groups.
Results: Four main adverse outcomes related to CP were identified in this review. These included less patient-health care worker contact, changes in systems of care that produce delays and more noninfectious adverse events, increased symptoms of depression and anxiety, and decreased patient satisfaction with care.
Conclusion: Although CP are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an intervention to control spread of MDROs, our review of the literature demonstrates that this approach has unintended consequences that are potentially deleterious to the patient. Measures to ameliorate these deleterious consequences of CP are urgently needed.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest to report.
Similar articles
-
Degowning the controversies of contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A review.Am J Infect Control. 2016 Jan 1;44(1):97-103. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.08.003. Epub 2015 Sep 12. Am J Infect Control. 2016. PMID: 26375351 Review.
-
Noninfectious Hospital Adverse Events Decline After Elimination of Contact Precautions for MRSA and VRE.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;39(7):788-796. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.93. Epub 2018 May 10. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018. PMID: 29745356 Free PMC article.
-
Reconsidering contact precautions for endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Oct;36(10):1163-72. doi: 10.1017/ice.2015.156. Epub 2015 Jul 3. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015. PMID: 26138329
-
Impact of doffing errors on healthcare worker self-contamination when caring for patients on contact precautions.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019 May;40(5):559-565. doi: 10.1017/ice.2019.33. Epub 2019 Mar 20. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019. PMID: 30890193
-
Isolation precautions for antibiotic-resistant bacteria in healthcare settings.Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2009 Aug;22(4):339-44. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32832d69b0. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2009. PMID: 19461513 Review.
Cited by
-
Using the Pillars of Infection Prevention to Build an Effective Program for Reducing the Transmission of Emerging and Reemerging Infections.Curr Environ Health Rep. 2015 Sep;2(3):226-35. doi: 10.1007/s40572-015-0059-7. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2015. PMID: 26231500 Free PMC article.
-
Whole-genome sequencing for outbreak investigations of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the neonatal intensive care unit: time for routine practice?Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Jul;36(7):777-85. doi: 10.1017/ice.2015.73. Epub 2015 May 8. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015. PMID: 25998499 Free PMC article.
-
The Effect of Contact Precautions on Frequency of Hospital Adverse Events.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Nov;36(11):1268-74. doi: 10.1017/ice.2015.192. Epub 2015 Aug 17. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015. PMID: 26278419 Free PMC article.
-
Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE): a reason to isolate?Infection. 2019 Feb;47(1):7-11. doi: 10.1007/s15010-018-1202-9. Epub 2018 Sep 3. Infection. 2019. PMID: 30178076 Review.
-
Comparison of the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus acquisition among rehabilitation and nursing home residents.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011 Mar;32(3):244-9. doi: 10.1086/658667. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011. PMID: 21460509 Free PMC article.
References
-
- van den Broek PJ. Historical perspectives for the new millennium. In: Wenzel RP, editor. Chapter I. Prevention and control of nosocomial infections. 4. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2003. pp. 3–14.
-
- Snider GL. Tuberculosis then and now: a personal perspective on the last 50 years. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:237–43. - PubMed
-
- Garner JS, Simmons BP. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Infect Control. 1983;4:245–325. - PubMed
-
- Fine L, Wachspress M, Grauber DN. Psychological adaptation of patients during treatment of acute leukaemia in life island isolator. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1969;3:27–34.
-
- Garner JS and the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Am J Infect Control. 1996;24:24–52. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous