198
siveness to patients.18–20 Current efforts to improve patient experience with responsiveness are focused on purposeful hourly rounding and providing the nurses’ hospital-issued phone num- bers to patients.21–23 It is important that such interventions include patients in isolation so as not to exacerbate any disparity in staff attention that may affect these patients. Additionally, patients with physical disability in isolation may be particularly vulnerable when in isolation. Patients in isolation reported that doctors listened to them
may be a marker for other factors, such as specific type of illness or illness severity, that dampen patient experience. The post- discharge nature of the survey may also have impeded detection of dose effect because of decreased recall. The absence of dose response could be the result of a threshold effect. Our sensitivity analysis demonstrated that patients in isolation for at least 25% of the hospital stay reported worse experience, similar to our exposure group. Given that the mean length of stay in the isolated patient population is 7.5 days, a lower exposure threshold (eg, 10%) would likely correspond to a single day spent in isolation for most patients. It is possible that a poor experience during this relatively brief period taints patient experience reporting for the entire hospital stay. Many studies have examined the importance of staff respon-
Zishan K. Siddiqui et al
Conflicts of interest. All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
References
1. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L. 2007 Guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/NIOSH-219/0219-010107- siegel.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2017.
2. EvansHL,ShafferMM,HughesMG, et
al.Contact isolationinsurgicalpatients: a barrier to care? Surgery 2003;134:180–188. doi:10.1067/msy.2003.222.
3. Kirkland KB, Weinstein JM. Adverse effects of contact isolation. Lancet 1999;354:1177–1178. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04196-3.
4. Saint S, Higgins LA, Nallamothu BK, Chenoweth C. Do physicians examine patients in contact isolation less frequently? A brief report Sanjay Saint. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:354–356.
5. Stelfox HT, Bates DW, Redelmeier DA. Safety of patients isolated for infection control. JAMA. 2003;290:1899.
6. Lupión-Mendoza C, Antúnez-Domínguez MJ, González-Fernández C, Romero-Brioso C, Rodriguez-Bano J. Effects of isolation on patients and staff. Am J Infect Control 2015;43:397–399.
7. Maunder R, Hunter J, Vincent L, et al. The immediate psychological and occupational impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in a teaching hospital. CMAJ 2003;168:1245–1251.
carefully less often. This could be related to less frequent patient visits by the physicians.4 However, this finding is difficult to interpret. As noted earlier, only 1 of the 3 physician items showed a statistically significant difference. Additionally, patients in isolation were not significantly less satisfied with the time physicians spent with them. When the overall quality of communication was suboptimal, it is unclear why patients would not also have indicated worse experience with the “doc- tors explained” item. Our study has some limitations. First, it was a retrospective
study. Our findings may be confounded by variables we are not aware of, and the dose-response analysis suggests this possibility. This study was conducted at a single, tertiary-care, academic center that predominantly serves an inner-city population and high-acuity patients, so our findings may not be generalizable. We arealsolimitedbythe lowresponserate; howeverour response rate is typical for the HCAHPS survey broadly across the nation.24 Elderly, male, acutely ill, and nonsurgical patients tend to have lower response rates. We have adjusted for these factors.24 Despite low response rates nationwide, HCAHPS survey results are relevant for hospital reimbursements and for policy purposes. Additionally, our subgroup analyses may have failed to demonstrate significant associations because of small sample size. In conclusion, our findings suggest that patient ratings of
provider and nursing communication were largely not affected by isolation status. This finding is especially reassuring because these communication items are regarded as some of the most important items for safety and quality of care. However, isola- tion status was associated with worse experience with respon- siveness. Hospitals could increase staff awareness on this aspect of care and emphasize timely response, especially for this population.
Acknowledgments. None. Financial support. No financial support was provided relevant to this article.
8. Catalano G, Houston SH, Catalano MC, et al. Anxiety and depression in hospitalized patients in resistant organism isolation. South Med J 2003;96:141–145.
9. Gammon J. Analysis of the stressful effects of hospitalisation and source isolationoncoping and psychological constructs. Int JNurs Pract 1998;4:84–96.
10. MacKellaig JM. A study of the psychological effects of intensive care with particular emphasis on patients in isolation. Intensive Care Nurs 1987;2:176–185.
11. Gasink LB, Singer K, Fishman NO, et al. Contact isolation for infection control in hospitalized patients: Is patient satisfaction affected? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:275–278.
12. Mehrotra P, Croft L, Day HR, et al. Effects of contact precautions on patient perception of care and satisfaction: a prospective cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:1087–1093.
13. Livorsi DJ, Kundu MG, Batteiger B, Kressel AB. Effect of contact precautions for MRSA on patient satisfaction scores. J Hosp Infect 2015;90:263–266.
14. Vinski J, Bertin M, Sun Z, et al. Impact of isolation on hospital consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems scores: Is isolation isolating? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:513–516.
15. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CAHPS Hospital Survey (HCAHPS): Quality Assurance Guidelines. Consumer Assessment of Health- care Providers and
Systemswebsite.http://
www.hcahpsonline.org/globalassets/ hcahps/quality-assurance/2018_qag_v13.0.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2018.
16. Hospital Compare datasets. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website.
https://data.medicare.gov/data/hospital-compare. Accessed Octo- ber 30, 2018.
17. Siddiqui ZK, Zuccarelli R, Durkin N, Wu AW, Brotman DJ. Changes in patient satisfaction related to hospital renovation: experience with a new clinical building. J Hosp Med. 2015;10:165–171.
18. Sofaer S, Crofton C, Goldstein E, Hoy E, Crabb J. What do consumers want to know about the quality of care in hospitals? Health Serv Res 2005;40:2018–2036.
19. Elliott MN, Kanouse DE, Edwards CA, Hilborne LH. Components of care vary in importance for overall patient-reported experience by type of hospitalization. Med Care 2009;47:842–849.
20. Ahmadi Kashkoli S, Zarei E, Daneshkohan A, Khodakarim S. Hospital responsiveness and its effect on overall patient satisfaction. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2017;30:728–736.
21. Meade CM, Bursell AL, Ketelsen L. Effects of nursing rounds: on patients’ call light use, satisfaction, and safety. Am J Nurs 2006;106:58–70.
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 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156
