Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 27, 2026

Microbial Control and Monitoring Strategies for Cleanroom Environments and Cellular Therapies
Published on: March 17, 2023
Safety of patients isolated for infection control
Henry Thomas Stelfox1, David W Bates, Donald A Redelmeier
1Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. stelfox@fas.harvard.edu
Context:
Hospital infection control policies that use patient isolation prevent nosocomial transmission of infectious diseases, but may inadvertently lead to patient neglect and errors.
Objective:
To examine the quality of medical care received by patients isolated for infection control.
Design, Setting, And Patients:
We identified consecutive adults who were isolated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization or infection at 2 large North American teaching hospitals: a general cohort (patients admitted with all diagnoses between January 1, 1999, and January 1, 2000; n = 78); and a disease-specific cohort (patients admitted with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure between January 1, 1999, and July 1, 2002; n = 72). Two matched controls were selected for each isolated patient (n = 156 general cohort controls and n = 144 disease-specific cohort controls).
Main Outcome Measures:
Quality-of-care measures encompassing processes, outcomes, and satisfaction. Adjustments for study cohort and patient demographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics were conducted using multivariable regression.
Results:
Isolated and control patients generally had similar baseline characteristics; however, isolated patients were twice as likely as control patients to experience adverse events during their hospitalization (31 vs 15 adverse events per 1000 days; P<.001). This difference in adverse events reflected preventable events (20 vs 3 adverse events per 1000 days; P<.001) as opposed to nonpreventable events (11 vs 12 adverse events per 1000 days; P =.98). Isolated patients were also more likely to formally complain to the hospital about their care than control patients (8% vs 1%; P<.001), to have their vital signs not recorded as ordered (51% vs 31%; P<.001), and more likely to have days with no physician progress note (26% vs 13%; P<.001). No differences in hospital mortality were observed for the 2 groups (17% vs 10%; P =.16).
Conclusion:
Compared with controls, patients isolated for infection control precautions experience more preventable adverse events, express greater dissatisfaction with their treatment, and have less documented care.
More Related Videos
07:45Preparation and Maintenance of Bioexclusion IsoPositive Cage Experiment for Human Fecal Transplantation into Germ-Free Mice
Published on: February 28, 2025
06:27Automated Hospital Room Disinfection Utilizing a Novel Aerosolized Hydrogen Peroxide Microdroplet Disbursing Technology
Published on: February 24, 2026
Related Concept Videos
Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
Asepsis
Hand hygiene
Hand washing...
Transmission-based Precautions II: Airborne and Protective Environment
Airborne precautions:
Use airborne precautions when treating patients known or suspected to have diseases that spread through the air—for example, tuberculosis or measles. These organisms are present in smaller droplets expelled by an infected person and...
Standard Precaution
Hand hygiene is the most crucial means to prevent the transmission of disease. Employers are legally required to provide their workers with personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize exposure or contact with...
Transmission-based Precautions I: Contact, Enteric, and Droplets
Contact Precautions:
Contact precautions are the measures taken to prevent the transmission of infectious agents, especially epidemiologically important microorganisms such as MRSA or influenza, primarily transmitted through direct or indirect contact with an...