Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T16:10:37.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survey of North Carolina Hospital Policies Regarding Visitor Use of Personal Protective Equipment for Entering the Rooms of Patients under Isolation Precautions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

JaHyun Kang ,
David J. Weber ,
Barbara A. Mark  and
William A. Rutala
JaHyun Kang*
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
David J. Weber
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Health Care, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Barbara A. Mark
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
William A. Rutala
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Health Care, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
*
415 Victoria Building, 3500 Victoria Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 (kangjh@pitt.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To explore the range of hospital policies for visitor use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when entering the room of patients under isolation precautions.

Design.

Survey using an online questionnaire.

Setting.

Acute care hospitals registered in the North Carolina Statewide Program for Infection Control and Epidemiology (SPICE).

Methods.

A total of 136 North Carolina hospitals were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey questionnaire was developed, reviewed, and pilot tested, and then it was distributed through SPICE listserv registered e-mail addresses. The survey was conducted from February 6 to March 30, 2012.

Results.

Among 93 respondent hospitals (response rate, 68.4%), 82 acute care hospitals (60.3%) were included in the analyses. Substantial variation was observed with regard to hospital policies for visitor PPE use when visiting patients under isolation precautions. A total of 71% of hospitals had a hospital visitor policy, and 96% of respondents agreed that hospitals should have a visitor policy. Only 14% of hospitals monitored visitor compliance with PPE. Reported compliance rates varied from “very low” to 97%. Many hospitals (28%) reported difficulties related to visitor compliance with isolation precautions, including hostility and refusal to comply.

Conclusions.

Our study results illuminated hospital policy variations for visitor isolation precautions. Reported problems with hospital visitor policies (eg, different policies across departments or facilities) suggest the need for standard guidelines and for enhanced public awareness about the importance of visitor compliance with isolation precautions.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , March 2014 , pp. 259 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2014

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.)

References

1. Siegel, JD, Rhinehart, E, Jackson, M, Chiarello, L. 2007 Guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 2007;35(10 suppl 2):S65–S164.Google Scholar
2. Bowling, JE, Cadena, J, Patterson, JE. Isolation of patients with communicable diseases. In: Mayhall, CG, eds. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012:1344–1364.Google Scholar
3. Jensen, PA, Lambert, LA, Iademarco, MF, Ridzon, R. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosa in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005;54(RR-17):1–141.Google Scholar
4. Feltovich, F, Fabrey, LJ. The current practice of infection prevention as demonstrated by the practice analysis survey of the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(10):784–788.Google Scholar
5. Miller, BA, Chen, LF, Sexton, DJ, Anderson, DJ. Comparison of the burdens of hospital-onset, healthcare facility-associated Clostridium difficile infection and of healthcare-associated infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in community hospitals. Infect Control Hospital Epidemiol 2011; 32(4):387–390.Google Scholar
6. Kang, J, Sickbert-Bennett, EE, Brown, VM, Weber, DJ, Rutala, WA. Incidence of healthcare-associated infections by pathogen at a university hospital from 2005 to 2011. In: Onsite program and abstracts book of the 39th Annual Educational Conferences and International Meeting of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC); June 4-6, 2012; San Antonio, TX (presentation 128).Google Scholar
7. Edwards, JR, Peterson, KD, Mu, Y, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report: data summary for 2006 through 2008, issued December 2009. Am J Infect Control 2009;37(10): 783–805.Google Scholar
8. Association of American Medical Colleges. Member teaching hospitals and health systems. 2012. https://services.aamc.org /memberlistings/index.cfm?fuseaction = home.search&search_type = TH8cstate_criteria=ALL. Accessed April 23, 2012.Google Scholar
9. American Hospital Directory. Individual hospital statistics for North Carolina. 2012. http://www.ahd.com/states/hospital_NC.html. Accessed September 21, 2012.Google Scholar
10. Millar, MM, Dillman, DA. Do mail and internet surveys produce different item nonresponse rates? an experiment using random mode assignment. Survey Practice 2012;5(2):l–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention of MRSA infections in healthcare settings 2011. 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/mrsa/prevent/healthcare.html. Acessed June, 10, 2012.Google Scholar
12. Manían, FA, Ponzillo, JJ. Compliance with routine use of gowns by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-HCW visitors on entry into the rooms of patients under contact precautions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(3):337–340.Google Scholar
13. 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(5): 513–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Morgan, DJ, Pineles, L, Shardell, M, et al. The effect of contact precautions on healthcare worker activity in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(1):69–73.Google Scholar