adverse events and contact precautions 795
a significant decline in noninfectious adverse events occurred, with the largest decline in patients who no longer required isolation for MRSA and VRE. Also, no increase in infectious adverse events was observed, including device-associated infections. These data and prior data indicating that the removal of routine CP can be performed without an increase in infectious complications suggest that the removal ofMRSA/ VRE CP can contribute to improved patient safety and reduction of preventable adverse events.6–8 More data on the optimal hospital conditions and quality improvement programs are needed to make this intervention successful. Given that CP are likely still necessary for specific populations, strategies to increase contact with healthcare providers and decrease noninfectious adverse events in these patients should be developed.
acknowledgments
Financial support: The study was self-funded. No financial support was provided relevant to this article. Statistical collaboration was supported by NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) UCLA CTSI (grant no. UL1TR001881). Potential conflicts of interest: All authors report no conflicts of interest rele-
vant to this article. Address correspondence to Elise Martin, MD, Division of Infectious
Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 10833 LeConte Ave, 37-121 CHS, Los Angeles, CA 90095 (
emartin@mednet.ucla.edu).
references
1. Calfee DP, Salgado CD, Milstone AM, et al. Strategies to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission and infection in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:772–796.
2. Muto CA, Jernigan JA, Ostrowsky BE, et al. SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:362–386.
3. Morgan DJ, Murthy R, Munoz-Price LS, et al. Reconsidering contact precautions for endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylo- coccus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:1163–1172.
4. Fatkenheuer G, Hirschel B, Harbarth S. Screening and isolation to control meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: sense, nonsense, and evidence. Lancet 2015;385:1146–1149.
5. Morgan DJ, Kaye KS, Diekema DJ. Reconsidering isolation pre- cautions for endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. JAMA 2014;312:1395–1396.
6. Martin EM, Russell D, Rubin Z, et al. Elimination of routine contact precautions for endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylo- coccus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: a retro- spective quasi-experimental study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:1323–1330.
7. Edmond MB, Masroor N, Stevens MP, Ober J, Bearman G. The impact of discontinuing contact precautions for VRE and MRSA on device-associated infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:978–980.
8. McKinnell JA, Eells SJ, Clark E, et al. Discontinuation of contact precautions with the introduction of universal daily chlorhex- idine bathing. Epidemiol Infect 2017;145:2575–2581.
9. Bearman GM, Marra AR, Sessler CN, et al. A controlled trial of universal gloving versus contact precautions for preventing the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:650–655.
10. Derde LP, Cooper BS, Goossens H, et al. Interventions to reduce colonisation and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in intensive care units: an interrupted time series study and cluster randomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014;14: 31–39.
11. Harbarth S, Fankhauser C, Schrenzel J, et al. Universal screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at hospital admission and nosocomial infection in surgical patients. JAMA 2008;299:1149–1157.
12. Harris AD, Pineles L, Belton B, et al. Universal glove and gown use and acquisition of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the ICU: a randomized trial. JAMA 2013;310:1571–1580.
13. Huang SS, Yokoe DS, Hinrichsen VL, et al. Impact of routine intensive care unit surveillance cultures and resultant barrier precautions on hospital-wide methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43:971–978.
14. Huskins WC, Huckabee CM, O’Grady NP, et al. Intervention to reduce transmission of resistant bacteria in intensive care. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1407–1418.
15. Jain R, Kralovic SM, Evans ME, et al. Veterans Affairs initiative to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1419–1430.
16. Lucet JC, Paoletti X, Lolom I, et al. Successful long-term program for controlling methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:1051–1057.
17. Marshall C, Richards M, McBryde E. Do active surveillance and contact precautions reduce MRSA acquisition? A prospective interrupted time series. PLoS One 2013;8:e58112.
18. Robicsek A, Beaumont JL, Paule SM, et al. Universal surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in 3 affiliated hospitals. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:409–418.
19. Safdar N, Marx J, Meyer NA, Maki DG. Effectiveness of pre- emptive barrier precautions in controlling nosocomial coloniza- tion and infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a burn unit. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:476–483.
20. De Angelis G, Cataldo MA, De Waure C, et al. Infection control and prevention measures to reduce the spread of vancomycin- resistant enterococci in hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014;69:1185–1192.
21. Stelfox HT, Bates DW, Redelmeier DA. Safety of patients isolated for infection control. JAMA 2003;290:1899–1905.
22. Karki S, Leder K, Cheng AC. Patients under contact precautions have an increased risk of injuries and medication errors: a ret- rospective cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34: 1118–1120.
23. Reed CR, Ferguson RA, Peng Y, et al. Contact isolation is a risk factor for venous thromboembolism in trauma patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015;79:833–837.
24. Dashiell-Earp CN, Bell DS, Ang AO, Uslan DZ. Do physicians spend less time with patients in contact isolation? A time-motion study of internal medicine interns. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174: 814–815.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144
