Format

Send to

Choose Destination
  • The following term was not found in PubMed: Gutierrez-CA-a.
J Healthc Qual Res. 2018 Sep - Oct;33(5):250-255. doi: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2018.06.003. Epub 2018 Oct 5.

[Critically ill patient isolation: risk or protection?]

[Article in Spanish]

Author information

1
Hospital Clínico Universitario, Zaragoza, España; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón, Zaragoza, España.
2
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón, Zaragoza, España; Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, España. Electronic address: caibar@unizar.es.
3
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón, Zaragoza, España; Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Zaragoza, España.
4
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón, Zaragoza, España; Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Zaragoza, España.
5
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón, Zaragoza, España; Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, España.
6
Hospital Universitario San Juan, Alicante, España.
7
Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, España.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Isolation precautions are an effective measure to prevent the spread of multi-resistant microorganisms (MMR). However, its implementation is complex and can increase some risks to the patient. The aim of this study is to determine whether the implementation of isolation precautions increase the risk of patient safety incidents (PSI) in critically ill patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

A retrospective observational study was conducted involving patients admitted to the ICU of a University Hospital, and that required isolation for more than 48h. Period of study: two years (from 2013/03/01 to 2015/03/31). Data source was the electronic medical record. The tools for evaluation were the Modular Review Form questionnaires (MRF1 and MRF2). An analysis was made of PSI and adverse events (AEs) during periods with and without isolation precautions, including the PSI type, severity, and preventability.

RESULTS:

The study included a total of 76 patients, 74 of whom had at least one PSI. A total of 798 PSI were detected (511 during isolation period), 599 were a No harm incident (NHI) and 199 were adverse AEs. The most frequent PSIs were associated with medication (316) and patient health care (279). Most of them were moderately or highly preventable. The incidence of PSI during periods with and without isolation was 27.3 (SD 33.8) and 29 (39.6) per 100 patient-days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

PSIs in ICU are frequent, and the most of them are preventable. The adoption of isolation precautions does not constitute a risk factor for PSI. Improving patient safety culture is essential for an adequate prevention strategy.

KEYWORDS:

Aislamiento de pacientes; Cuidados críticos; Intensive care; Patient isolation; Patient safety; Seguridad del paciente

PMID:
30401420
DOI:
10.1016/j.jhqr.2018.06.003
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center