Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011;6(7):e22190.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022190. Epub 2011 Jul 21.

The impact of Contact Isolation on the quality of inpatient hospital care

Affiliations

The impact of Contact Isolation on the quality of inpatient hospital care

Daniel J Morgan et al. PLoS One. 2011.

Abstract

Background: Contact Isolation is a common hospital infection prevention method that may improve infectious outcomes but may also hinder healthcare delivery.

Methods: To evaluate the impact of Contact Isolation on compliance with individual and composite process of care quality measures, we formed four retrospective diagnosis-based cohorts from a 662-bed tertiary-care medical center. Each cohort contained patients evaluated for one of four Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare process measures including Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), Pneumonia (PNA) and Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) from January 1, 2007 through May 30, 2009.

Results: The 6716-admission cohort included 1259 with AMI, 834 with CHF, 1377 with PNA and 3246 in SCIP. Contact Isolation was associated with not meeting 4 of 23 individual hospital measures (4 of 10 measures were not met for care provided while patients are typically isolated). Contact Isolation was independently associated with lower compliance with the composite pneumonia process-of-care measure (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7). AMI, CHF and SCIP composite measures were not impacted by Contact Isolation.

Conclusions: Contact Isolation was associated with lower adherence to some pneumonia quality of care process measures of care on inpatient wards but did not impact CHF, AMI or SCIP measures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Morgan DJ, Diekema DJ, Sepkowitz K, Perencevich EN. Adverse outcomes associated with contact precautions: A review of the literature. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(2):85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.04.257. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L Health Care Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. 2007 Guideline for isolation precautions: Preventing transmission of infectious agents in health care settings. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(10 Suppl 2):S65–164. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.10.007. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Evans HL, Shaffer MM, Hughes MG, Smith RL, Chong TW, et al. Contact isolation in surgical patients: A barrier to care? Surgery. 2003;134(2):180–188. doi: 10.1067/msy.2003.222. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kirkland KB, Weinstein JM. Adverse effects of contact isolation. Lancet. 1999;354(9185):1177–1178. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04196-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saint S, Higgins LA, Nallamothu BK, Chenoweth C. Do physicians examine patients in contact isolation less frequently? A brief report. Am J Infect Control. 2003;31(6):354–356. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms