Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T10:56:31.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tuberculosis Isolation Comparison of Written Procedures and Actual Practices in Three California Hospitals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Patrice M. Sutton ,
Mark Nicas  and
Robert J. Harrison
Patrice M. Sutton*
Affiliation:
Public Health Institute, School of Public Health, University of California
Mark Nicas
Affiliation:
Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of California
Robert J. Harrison
Affiliation:
California Department of Health Services, Berkeley, California
*
Public Health Institute, California Department of Health Services, 1515 Clay St, Suite 1901, Oakland, CA 94612
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate implementation of healthcare worker exposure control measures for tuberculosis (TB)-patient isolation, as specified by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and the hospital's TB-control policy.

Design:

Prospective multihospital study comparing CDC guidelines and hospital policy for TB-patient isolation to once-weekly observations of TB-patient isolation practices over 14 consecutive weeks at each hospital.

Setting:

Three urban hospitals (two county, one private community) in counties in California with a high incidence rate of TB.

Measurements:

Work practices for TB-patient isolation were observed and ventilation performance of isolation rooms was assessed while patient rooms were in use for TB isolation.

Results:

Of 170 TB-patient rooms observed, 119 (70%) involved a patient in a designated TB isolation room, the room was under negative pressure, the door was closed, and a “respiratory precautions” sign was on the door; 32 patient-room units (19%) were not under negative pressure or not designated as negative-pressure rooms. Of 151 patient-room units mechanically capable of negative pressure at a prior point in time, 16 (11%) were not under negative pressure at the time of use. Of 67 patient-room units equipped with continuous monitoring devices, 8 (12%) involved devices that did not accurately reflect the direction of airflow. Of the 62 healthcare workers observed using a respirator for TB, 40 (65%) did not don the respirator properly.

Conclusions:

Implementing CDC guidelines for TB-patient isolation was feasible but imperfect in the three hospitals. Day-to-day work practices deviated from hospital policy. Prospectively quantifying the implementation of a hospital TB isolation policy while the room is in use may lead to improved estimates of risk and may help to identify and thereby prevent avoidable healthcare worker exposures to Mycobacterium tuberculosis aerosol. Auditing practices and verifying equipment performance is likely to identify unexpected problems in implementation of the TB control program.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 28 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Bowden, KM, McDiarmid, M. Occupationally acquired tuberculosis: what's known. J Occup Med 1994;36:320–325.Google Scholar
2.Sepkowitz, KA. Tuberculosis and the healthcare worker: a historical perspective. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:71–79.Google Scholar
3.Behrman, AJ, Shofer, FS. Tuberculosis exposure and control in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1998;31:370–375.Google Scholar
4.Sepkowitz, KA, Friedman, CR, Hafner, A, Kwok, D, Manoach, S, Floris, M, et al. Tuberculosis among urban healthcare workers: a study using restriction fragment length polymorphism typing. Clin Infect Dis 1995;21:1098–1102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Boudreau, AY, Baron, SL, Steenland, NK, Van Gilder, TJ, Decker, JA, Galson, SK, et al. Occupational risk of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in hospital workers. Am find Med 1997;32:528–534.Google Scholar
6.Pearson, ML, Jereb, JA, Freiden, TRCrawford, JT, Davis, BJ, Dooley, SW, et al. Nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. A risk to patients and health care workers. Ann Intern Med 1992;117;191–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Occupational exposure to tuberculosis—OSHA, Proposed rule and notice of public hearing. Fed Regist 1997;62:54160–54308.Google Scholar
8.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care facilities. MMWR 1994;43(RR-13):8–55.Google Scholar
9.Sutton, PM, Nicas, M, Reinisch, F, Harrison, R. Evaluating the control of tuberculosis among healthcare workers: adherence of three urban hospitals in California to CDC guidelines. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:487–493.Google Scholar
10.Manangan, LP, Perrotta, DM, Banerjee, SN, Hack, D, Simonds, D, Jarvis, WR. Status of tuberculosis infection control programs at Texas hospitals, 1989 through 1991. Am J Infect Control 1997:25:229–235.Google Scholar
11.Sutton, PM, Nicas, M, Harrison, R. Implementing a quality assurance program for tuberculosis control. In: Charney, W, ed. Handbook of Modern Hospital Safety. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC; 1999:246–252.Google Scholar
12.Blumberg, HM, Watkins, DL, Berschling, JD, Antle, A, Moore, P, White, N, et al. Preventing nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:658–663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Dahl, KM, L'Ecuyer, PB, Jones, M, Fraser, VJ. Follow-up evaluation of respiratory isolation rooms in 10 midwestern hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:816–818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Woeltie, KF, L'Ecuyer, PB, Seiler, S, Fraser, VJ. Varied approaches to tuberculosis control in a multihospital system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:548–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.La Rochelle, DR, Carlson, EV. Protecting the provider from tuberculosis exposure. Nurs Clin North Am 1995;30:13–22.Google Scholar
16.Beck-Sagué, C, Dooley, SW, Hutton, MD, Often, J, Breeden, A, Crawford, JT, et al. Hospital outbreak of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections: factors in transmission to staff and HIV-infected patients. JAMA 1992;268:1280–1286.Google Scholar
17.Jereb, JA, Kelvens, RM, Privett, TD, Smith, PJ, Crawford, JT, Sharp, VL, et al. Tuberculosis in health care workers at a hospital with an outbreak of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:854–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Luby, S, Carmichael, S, Shaw, G, Horan, J, Gamble, W, Jones, J. A nosocomial outbreak of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Fam Pract 1994;39:21–25.Google Scholar
19.Watson, LH, Rosen, JD. Educating workers about tuberculosis. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews 1994;9:681–693.Google Scholar
20.Stricof, RL, Délies, LP, Difernando, G Jr. Mask/particulate respirator use by employees at risk for exposure to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Am JRespir Crit Care Med 1994; 149 (suppl) :A855.Google Scholar
21.Schuchat, A. Hospital, heal thyself. Am J Public Health 1997:87:1413–1414.Google Scholar
22.Nicas, M. Refining a risk model for occupational tuberculosis transmission. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1996;57:16–22.Google Scholar
23.Barnhardt, S, Sheppard, L, Beaudet, N, Stover, B, Balmes, J. Tuberculosis in healthcare settings and the estimated benefits of engineering controls and respiratory protection. JOEM 1997;39:849–854.Google Scholar