Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:23:29.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Special Organism Isolation: Attempting to Bridge the Gap

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Jan Evans Patterson ,
Rebecca O. Sanchez ,
Jose Hernandez ,
Patti Grota  and
Kathryn A. Ross
Jan Evans Patterson*
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine (Infectious Diseases) and Pathology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Department of Infection Control, Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital, San Antonio, Texas
Rebecca O. Sanchez
Affiliation:
Department of Quality/Risk Management/Infection Control, University Hospital
Jose Hernandez
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control, Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital, San Antonio, Texas
Patti Grota
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control, Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital, San Antonio, Texas
Kathryn A. Ross
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control, West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center, West Haven, Connecticut
*
Department of Medicine (Infectious Diseases), The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr. San Antonio, TX 78284-7881
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There have been many changes in infection control in the 10 years since the last publication of isolation guidelines for hospitals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Hospitals since have used the 1988 CDC Update on Universal Precautions as a minimum because it is required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Even before these changes, Lynch and Jackson described the concept of body substance isolation, which is intended primarily to decrease cross-transmission between patients. Many hospitals' universal precautions policies also incorporate the concept of body substance isolation to prevent the transmission of non-bloodborne as well as bloodborne pathogens. The 1988 CDC update states that the use of universal precautions does not eliminate the need for other category- or disease-specific isolation, or an institution's own system of isolation precautions.

West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Connecticut and the University Health System and Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital in San Antonio, Texas, have adopted a universal precautions/body substance isolation (UP/BSI) policy as a standard for all patients in an attempt to lessen the confusion. All three hospitals are large, university-affiliated, tertiary care teaching institutions. Blood and all body fluids or tissue from all patients are considered potentially infectious and barrier precautions are used accordingly. Body substance isolation has been shown to decrease the transmission of some non-blood-borne pathogens.

Type
Readers' Forum
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 15 , Issue 5 , May 1994 , pp. 335 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1994

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. Garner, JS, Simmons, BP Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Infect Control 1983;4:245–325.Google Scholar
2. Centers for Diseases Control. Update: universal precautions for prevention of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and other bloodborne pathogens in health-care settings. MMWR 1988;37:377–388.Google Scholar
3. Jackson, MM, Lynch, P. Infection control: too much or too little? Am J Nurs 1984;208–210.Google Scholar
4. Lynch, P, Cummings, MJ, Roberts, PL, Herriott, MJ, Yates, B, Stamm, WE. Implementing and evaluating a system of generic infection precautions: body substance isolation. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:1:1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Lynch, P, Jackson, MM, Cummings, MJ, Stamm, WE. Rethinking the role of isolation practices in the prevention of nosocomial infections. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:243–246.Google Scholar
6. Pugliese, G, Lynch, P, Jackson, MM, eds. Universal Precautions. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Publishing, Inc, 1991.Google Scholar
7. Livomese, LL, Dias, S, Samuel, C, et al. Hospital-acquired infection with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium transmitted by electronic thermometers. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:112–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Zervos, MJ, Kauffman, CA, Therasse, PM, Bergman, AG, Mikesell, TS, Schaberg, DR. Epidemiology of nosocomial infection caused by gentamicin-resistant Streptococcus faecalis . Ann Intern Med 1987;106:687–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Handwerger, S, Raucher, B, Altarac, D, et al. Nosocomial outbreak due to Enterococcus faecium highly resistant to vancomycin, penicillin, and gentamicin. Clin Infect Dis 1993;16:750–755.Google Scholar
10. Karenfil, LV, Murphy, M, Josephson, A, et al. A cluster of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus fuecium in an intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Patterson, JE, Vecchio, J, Pantelick, EL, et al. Association of contaminated gloves with transmission of Acinetobacter calcoaceticus var. anitratus in an intensive care unit. Am J Med 1991;91:479–483.Google Scholar
12. Hartstein, AI, Rashad, AL, Liebler, JM, et al. Multiple intensive care unit outbreak of Acinetobacter calcoaceticus subspecies anitrutus respiratory infection and colonization associated with contaminated, reusable ventilator circuits and resuscitation bags. Am I Med 1988;85:624–631.Google Scholar
13. McFarland, LV, Mulligan, ME, Kowk, YY, Stamm, WE. Nosocomial acquisition of Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 1989;320:204–210.Google Scholar