Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:09:28.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Category 1, 2, 3 and 4 A Procedure-Oriented Isolation System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Donna S. Gilmore ,
John Z. Montgomerie  and
Irene E. Graham
Donna S. Gilmore*
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center, Downey, California School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
John Z. Montgomerie
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center, Downey, California School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
Irene E. Graham
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center, Downey, California School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
*
Infectious Disease Division, Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center, 7601 East Imperial Highway, Downey, CA 90242
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A procedure-oriented isolation system, Category 1, 2, 3, and 4, was introduced at a 547-bed, acute and rehabilitative medical center. The system consisted of four categories of isolation which followed a numerical sequence that represented the necessary attire needed to complete the procedure. After 1 year of use, personnel compared the procedure-oriented system with the previously-used system (Strict, Respiratory, Wound and Skin, Enteric, and Limited Barrier). Personnel found the procedure-oriented system easier to understand (84%) and follow (83%). Seventy-six percent felt their isolation techniques had improved with the new system. A reduction in the cross-infection rate with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus did coincide with the use of the new isolation system, however, no causal relationship was established. The Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 isolation system was well received by personnel and was found to be an effective alternative to the previous, more complicated system used in this setting. Further evaluation of this system in other settings would seem warranted.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 7 , Issue 5 , May 1986 , pp. 263 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1986

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.National Communicable Disease Center: Isolation Techniques for Use in Hospital. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. PHS Publication No. 2054, 1970, P vii.Google Scholar
2.Garner, JS, Simmons, BP, CDC guidelines for isolation precautions in hospitals. Guidelines for Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. US Department of Health and Human Services. HHS Publication No. (CDC) 83-8314. July 1983.Google Scholar
3.Schefler, WC, Statistics for the Biological Sciences. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979, pp 103–109.Google Scholar
4.Aeilts, GD, Sapico, FL, Canawati, HN, et al: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization and infection in a rehabilitation facility. J Clin Microbiol 1982;16:218–223.Google Scholar