Patients in isolation, their physical, environmental and mental health: An exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Strict patient isolation in hospital is associated with adverse health outcomes. However, there is a lack of high-quality evidence for effective interventions to improve safety and quality of care for these patients. AIMS: To identify patient reported areas for improvement in the care of patients in hospital isolation and to determine the feasibility of collecting patient reported outcomes using validated tools. METHODS: Design An exploratory mixed methods study. Setting A major metropolitan teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Participants Patients in hospital isolation for transmissible infections. Data collection Data were collected by (1) phone interviews with patients in isolation and (2) seven validated measurement tools to assess cognition, loneliness, nutritional status, quality of life, anxiety and depression and physical activity. Data were collected between September and December 2021. Data analysis Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively including participant characteristics and outcome data. RESULTS: Participants identified areas for improvement including activities to decrease boredom, more contact with staff to mitigate loneliness and increase comfort care, and formalised communication about clinical treatment and discharge plan. Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms were happier to be alone. There were operational challenges within the health service including delays and miscommunication. Only 70% of the participants completed all questionnaires. CONCLUSION: This study identified areas for improvement in care of patients in isolation and demonstrated that collecting patient reported outcomes using validated tools was feasible. The results of this research will inform development of an intervention to manage adverse effects. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Patients in hospital isolation require additional consideration to ensure that their needs are met to avoid adverse outcomes. The patient experience and comfort can be negatively affected when fundamental care is lacking. REPORTING METHOD (EQUATOR): EQUATOR guidelines for Mixed Methods Reporting in Rehabilitation & Health Sciences (MMR-RHS). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Thirteen patients in hospital isolation agreed to participate in this study, sharing their experiences through interviews and assessment.

Visitor Restrictions During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Increased Falls With Harm at a Canadian Hospital: An Exploratory Study.

BACKGROUND: Falls with harms (FWH) in hospitalized patients increase costs and lengths of stay. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more FWH. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased patients in isolation with fewer visitors. Their relationship with falls has not been previously studied. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-site, 12-month before pandemic-12-month after pandemic, observational study. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to model FWH outcome and associations with isolation and visitor restrictions. RESULTS: There were 4369 isolation events and 385 FWH among 22,505 admissions during the study period. Unadjusted analysis demonstrated a FWH risk of 1.33% (95% CI 0.99, 1.67) in those who were placed in isolation compared to 1.80% (95% CI 1.60, 2.00) in those without an isolation event ( χ2 = 4.73, P = 0.03). The FWH risk during the different visitor restriction periods was significantly higher compared to the prepandemic period ( χ2 = 20.81, P < 0.001), ranging from 1.28% (95% CI 1.06, 2.50) in the prepandemic period to 2.03% (95% 1.66, 2.40) with no visitors permitted (phase A) in the pandemic period. After adjusting for potential confounders and selection bias, only phase A visitor restrictions were associated with an increased FWH risk of 0.75% (95% CI 0.32, 1.18) compared to no visitor restrictions. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest a moderately strong association between hospitalized patient FWH risk and severe visitor restrictions. This association was muted in phases with even minor allowances for visitation. This represents the first report of the adverse effects of visitor restriction policies on patients' FWH risks.

What is already known on this topic ­ Patient accidents in hospitals account for 4% of all hospital-related harmful events. There are many risk factors that contribute to these accidents, but few interventions that reduce their risk. During the COVID-19 pandemic period, the number of patient accidents has increased. While the reasons for this association are unclear, they may be related to COVID-19-related interventions such as patient isolation and visitor restrictions. What this study adds ­ This exploratory study is the first to demonstrate that visitor restrictions may be associated with an increased risk of patient accidents. How this study might affect research, practice or policy ­ The potential harmful effects of visitor restrictions should be taken into consideration whenever these interventions are being implemented as part of a bundled strategy for prevention of infectious diseases transmission and protection. Patient accidents in hospitals resulting in harm requiring either treatment or prolonged hospital stay are of great interest to health care, policy makers and the general public. 1 They account for 4% of all hospital-related harmful events and are included as an indicator in the new Hospital Harm Measure instituted across Canada as a patient safety quality measure of acute hospital care. 2 Since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada on March 13, 2020, there were 0.26 patient trauma events per 100 hospitalizations reported in both 2020­2021 and 2021­2022, a 13% increase from 2019 to 2020. 3 In a population-based observational study conducted among Ontario patients hospitalized in 2015­2016, patient accidents were estimated to increase the index hospitalization length of stay by 17.3 days (95% CI 17.0, 17.6) and costs by $47824 (95% CI 47,383, 48,266) (CDN). 4 There have been over 400 clinical factors identified as being associated with an increased risk of falls in hospitalized patients. 5 Risk mitigation strategies have been implemented in many hospitals to prevent anticipatory falls defined as potentially preventable through early identification of patients that exhibit clinical signs associated with increased risk of falls. These anticipatory falls make up approximately 30% of all falls, with the remainder being nonpreventable and due to unanticipated or accidental falls. 5 In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of falls prevention interventions on fall outcomes for adults in hospital settings, patient and staff education was the only intervention that reduced the fall rate risk ratio (RR) 0.70 (95% CI 0.51, 0.96) and the fall odds ratio 0.62 (95% 0.47, 0.83) with a high level of certainty, while early stratification using fall risk screening tools, rehabilitation and exercise therapies, assistive and alarm devices, system changes such as hourly rounding, and environmental modifications demonstrated no benefit. 6 One particular program, the Fall TIPS program, 7,8 which leverages visitor engagement to ensure that patients are compliant with fall prevention recommendations printed on a laminated poster or visual aid, demonstrated a 34% reduction in falls with harm, suggesting a potential mechanism through which patient visitation might reduce patient harm. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a COVID-19 pandemic. 9 In an attempt to prevent the introduction and spread of COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals and prevent transmission from patients and healthcare providers to visitors, regional and local public health authorities advised acute care hospitals to cancel elective clinic visits, treatments, and surgical procedures and implement visitor restrictions and enhanced COVID-19 screening and isolation protocols. These recommendations resulted in increased numbers of patients in contact/droplet isolation precautions and more severe patient visitor restrictions. Many of these recommendations were revised during the subsequent pandemic waves, as some were considered by many to be ineffective and potentially harmful. 10­12 For example, some have argued that patient visitors are unlikely to be an important source of hospital-acquired COVID-19 infection. 12 The authors concluded that severe patient visitor restrictions may have prevented few COVID-19 infections, while contributing to low staff morale and worse patient outcomes. In a retrospective before-after ecological study conducted at 32 hospitals within the Beryl Institute community in the United States from 2019 to 2020, the unadjusted in-hospital fall with hip fracture rates increased from 0.03 events (per 1000 hospital discharges) in 2019 in hospitals with no visitor restrictions, to 0.07 in hospitals with partial limited visitation in 2020, and to 0.14 in hospitals with absolute visitor restriction policies in 2020, 13 possibly suggesting a signal for patient harm associated with different levels of visitor restrictions. As for increased numbers of hospitalized patients in isolation, a systematic review noted that isolation practices are associated with less patient-healthcare worker interaction, delays in care, and increased symptoms of depression and anxiety. 14 The impact of either visitor restrictions or patient isolation on FWH risks has not been reported. 10,11,14 This is an exploratory study to determine if there is an association between either isolation precautions or visitor restrictions and increased falls with harm risk in adult patients hospitalized in an acute care community hospital.

Isolation and Quarantine for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the United States, 2020-2022.

BACKGROUND: Public health programs varied in ability to reach people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and their contacts to encourage separation from others. For both adult case patients with COVID-19 and their contacts, we estimated the impact of contact tracing activities on separation behaviors from January 2020 until March 2022. METHODS: We used a probability-based panel survey of a nationally representative sample to gather data for estimates and comparisons. RESULTS: An estimated 64 255 351 adults reported a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test result; 79.6% isolated for ≥5 days, 60.2% isolated for ≥10 days, and 79.2% self-notified contacts. A total of, 24 057 139 (37.7%) completed a case investigation, and 46.2% of them reported contacts to health officials. More adults who completed a case investigation isolated than those who did not complete a case investigation (≥5 days, 82.6% vs 78.2%, respectively; ≥10 days, 69.8% vs 54.8%; both P < .05). A total of 84 946 636 adults were contacts of a COVID-19 case patient. Of these, 73.1% learned of their exposure directly from a case patient; 49.4% quarantined for ≥5 days, 18.7% quarantined for ≥14 days, and 13.5% completed a contact tracing call. More quarantined among those who completed a contact tracing call than among those who did not complete a tracing call (≥5 days, 61.2% vs 48.5%, respectively; ≥14 days, 25.2% vs 18.0%; both P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Engagement in contact tracing was positively correlated with isolation and quarantine. However, most adults with COVID-19 isolated and self-notified contacts regardless of whether the public health workforce was able to reach them. Identifying and reaching contacts was challenging and limited the ability to promote quarantining, and testing.

Early centralized isolation strategy for all confirmed cases of COVID-19 remains a core intervention to disrupt the pandemic spreading significantly.

BACKGROUND: In response to the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), plenty of control measures were proposed. To assess the impact of current control measures on the number of new case indices 14 countries with the highest confirmed cases, highest mortality rate, and having a close relationship with the outbreak's origin; were selected and analyzed. METHODS: In the study, we analyzed the impact of five control measures, including centralized isolation of all confirmed cases, closure of schools, closure of public areas, closure of cities, and closure of borders of the 14 targeted countries according to their timing; by comparing its absolute effect average, its absolute effect cumulative, and its relative effect average. RESULTS: Our analysis determined that early centralized isolation of all confirmed cases was represented as a core intervention in significantly disrupting the pandemic's spread. This strategy helped in successfully controlling the early stage of the outbreak when the total number of cases were under 100, without the requirement of the closure of cities and public areas, which would impose a negative impact on the society and its economy. However, when the number of cases increased with the apparition of new clusters, coordination between centralized isolation and non-pharmaceutical interventions facilitated control of the crisis efficiently. CONCLUSION: Early centralized isolation of all confirmed cases should be implemented at the time of the first detected infectious case.

Effects of dynamic response to coronavirus disease outbreak in a regional emergency medical center: A retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: Emergency departments (EDs) are on the frontline of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. To resolve the abrupt overloading of COVID-19-suspected patients in a community, each ED needs to respond in various ways. In our hospital, we increased the isolation beds through temporary remodeling and by performing in-hospital COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction testing rather than outsourcing them. The aim of this study was to verify the effects of our response to the newly developed viral outbreak.The medical records of patients who presented to an ED were analyzed retrospectively. We divided the study period into 3: pre-COVID-19, transition period of response (the period before fully implementing the response measures), and post-response (the period after complete response). We compared the parameters of the National Emergency Department Information System and information about isolation and COVID-19.The number of daily ED patients was 86.8 ±â€Š15.4 in the pre-COVID-19, 36.3 ±â€Š13.6 in the transition period, and 67.2 ±â€Š10.0 in the post-response period (P < .001). The lengths of stay in the ED were significantly higher in transition period than in the other periods [pre-COVID-19 period, 219.0 (121.0-378.0) min; transition period, 301 (150.0-766.5) min; post-response period, 281.0 (114.0-575.0) min; P < .001]. The ratios of use of an isolation room and fever (≥37.5°C) were highest in the post-response period [use of isolation room: pre-COVID-19 period, 0.6 (0.7%); transition period, 1.2 (3.3%); post-response period, 16.1 (24.0%); P < .001; fever: pre-COVID-19 period, 14.8(17.3%); transition period, 6.8 (19.1%); post-response period, 14.5 (21.9%), P < .001].During an outbreak of a novel infectious disease, increasing the number of isolation rooms in the ED and applying a rapid confirmation test would enable the accommodation of more suspected patients, which could help reduce the risk posed to the community and thus prevent strain on the local emergency medical system.

Acceptance of a Symptom-Based Approach for COVID-19 rtRT-PCR Testing to Conserve Resources in a Lower Middle-Income Setting.

SARS-CoV-2 initially emerged in Wuhan, China in late 2019. It has since been recognized as a pandemic and has led to great social and economic disruption globally. The Reverse Transcriptase Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (rtRT-PCR) has become the primary method for COVID-19 testing worldwide. The method requires a specialized laboratory set up. Long-term persistence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal secretion after full clinical recovery of the patient is regularly observed nowadays. This forces the patients to spend a longer period in isolation and test repeatedly to obtain evidence of viral clearance. Repeated COVID-19 testing in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases often leads to extra workload for laboratories that are already struggling with a high specimen turnover. Here, we present 5 purposively selected cases with different patterns of clinical presentations in which nasopharyngeal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was observed in patients for a long time. From these case studies, we emphasized the adoption of a symptom-based approach for discontinuing transmission-based precautions over a test-based strategy to reduce the time spent by asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in isolation. A symptom-based approach will also help reduce laboratory burden for COVID-19 testing as well as conserve valuable resources and supplies utilized for rtRT-PCR testing in an emerging lower-middle-income setting. Most importantly, it will also make room for critically ill COVID-19 patients to visit or avail COVID-19 testing at their convenience.

Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV: Validation and impact evaluation at a large UK hospital trust.

Despite vaccination programs and antivirals, influenza remains a prominent cause of morbidity and mortality. The Xpert Xpress Flu/respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) test is a leading influenza point-of-care test, but its evaluation has been limited to nasopharyngeal samples. In addition, the clinical impacts of Xpress Flu/RSV have not yet been quantified. We evaluated the performance of Xpress Flu/RSV at three locations in a UK Hospital Trust against an existing laboratory assay. Multiple upper respiratory tract sample types were included. In addition, we calculated time saved by Xpert, and the associations between Xpert use and rates of early patient isolation and antiviral prescription as recorded at the time of the laboratory result being telephoned out. A total of 642 patients were included in the diagnostic performance analysis. There were 177 laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza A, 7 influenza B and 86 RSV. For influenza A, sensitivity and specificity were 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.8%-98.8%) and 98.1% (CI: 96.4%-99.1%), respectively. This was sustained across all locations and sample types. The negative predictive value was 98.7% (CI: 97.2%-99.4%). The median amount of time saved was 27.1 h. Xpert use was associated with sixfold higher rates of isolation and threefold higher rates of antiviral prescribing by the time the laboratory result was available. Sensitivity for RSV was lower at 86.0% (95% CI: 76.9%-92.6%). Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV reliably detects influenza A infection and has significant clinical impacts. Cartridge optimization is required to enable accurate multiplexing, including from a range of sample types.

Practice in Information Technology Support for Fangcang Shelter Hospital during COVID-19 Epidemic in Wuhan, China.

In confronting the sudden epidemic of COVID-19, China and other countries have been under great deal of pressure to block virus transmission and reduce death cases. Fangcang shelter hospital, which is converted from large-scale public venue, is proposed and proven to be an effective way for administering medical care and social isolation. This paper presents the practice in information technology support for a Fangcang shelter hospital in Wuhan, China. The experiences include the deployment strategy of IT infrastructure, the redesign of function modules in the hospital information system (HIS), equipment maintenance and medical staff training. The deployment strategy and HIS modules have ensured smoothness and efficiency of clinical work. The team established a quick response mechanism and adhered to the principle of nosocomial infection control. Deployment of network and modification of HIS was finished in the 48 hours before patient admittance. A repair hotline and remote support for equipment and software were available whenever medical workers met with any questions. No engineer ever entered the contaminated areas and no one was infected by the coronavirus during the hospital operation. Up to now, Fangcang shelter hospital is adopted by many regions around the world facing the collapse of their medical systems. This valuable experience in informatization construction and service in Wuhan may help participators involving in Fangcang shelter hospital get better information technology support, and find more practical interventions to fight the epidemic.

The Use of Restraint and Seclusion in Residential Treatment Care for Youth: A Systematic Review of Related Factors and Interventions.

Children placed in residential treatment centers (RTCs) typically present challenging behavior including aggression. In this context, restraint and seclusion (R&S) are seen as "last resort" strategies for educators to manage youth aggression. The use of R&S is controversial, as they can lead to psychological and physical consequences for both the client and the care provider and have yet to be empirically validated as therapeutic. The objectives of this systematic review are to identify the factors related to R&S use in RTCs for youth and to review the interventions aiming to reduce the use of R&S. The identification of these factors is the first step to gaining a better understanding of the decision-making process leading to the use of R&S and ultimately to reducing the use of these strategies to a minimum. Thus, the present systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, and PsycNET for articles published between 2002 and 2017. Key words used were synonyms of R&S, youth, and RTCs. Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria: must report on factors affecting the use of R&S in RTCs, must be conducted in RTCs for youth under the age of 21, and must report on original and empirical data. Factors related to the characteristics of the client, the care provider, and the environment, as well as to the implementation of programs for the reduction of R&S, were found to influence the use of R&S in RTCs. A conceptual model is presented. The implementation of programs to reduce R&S use is discussed.

Outcomes from an infectious disease physician-guided evaluation of hospitalized persons under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at a large US academic medical center.

We describe an approach to the evaluation and isolation of hospitalized persons under investigation (PUIs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at a large US academic medical center. Only a small proportion (2.9%) of PUIs with 1 or more repeated severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) after a negative NAAT were diagnosed with COVID-19.

The use of mechanical restraint in Pacific Rim countries: an international epidemiological study.

AIMS: The use of mechanical restraint is a challenging area for psychiatry. Although mechanical restraint remains accepted as standard practice in some regions, there are ethical, legal and medical reasons to minimise or abolish its use. These concerns have intensified following the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Despite national policies to reduce use, the reporting of mechanical restraint has been poor, hampering a reasonable understanding of the epidemiology of restraint. This paper aims to develop a consistent measure of mechanical restraint and compare the measure within and across countries in the Pacific Rim. METHODS: We used the publicly available data from four Pacific Rim countries (Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the United States) to compare and contrast the reported rates of mechanical restraint. Summary measures were computed so as to enable international comparisons. Variation within each jurisdiction was also analysed. RESULTS: International rates of mechanical restraint in 2017 varied from 0.03 (New Zealand) to 98.9 (Japan) restraint events per million population per day, a variation greater than 3000-fold. Restraint in Australia (0.17 events per million) and the United States (0.37 events per million) fell between these two extremes. Variation as measured by restraint events per 1000 bed-days was less extreme but still substantial. Within all four countries there was also significant variation in restraint across districts. Variation across time did not show a steady reduction in restraint in any country during the period for which data were available (starting from 2003 at the earliest). CONCLUSIONS: Policies to reduce or abolish mechanical restraint do not appear to be effecting change. It is improbable that the variation in restraint within the four examined Pacific Rim countries is accountable for by psychopathology. Greater efforts at reporting, monitoring and carrying out interventions to achieve the stated aim of reducing restraint are urgently needed.

Modeling the transmission dynamics and the impact of the control interventions for the COVID-19 epidemic outbreak.

In this paper we develop a compartmental epidemic model to study the transmission dynamics of the COVID-19 epidemic outbreak, with Mexico as a practical example. In particular, we evaluate the theoretical impact of plausible control interventions such as home quarantine, social distancing, cautious behavior and other self-imposed measures. We also investigate the impact of environmental cleaning and disinfection, and government-imposed isolation of infected individuals. We use a Bayesian approach and officially published data to estimate some of the model parameters, including the basic reproduction number. Our findings suggest that social distancing and quarantine are the winning strategies to reduce the impact of the outbreak. Environmental cleaning can also be relevant, but its cost and effort required to bring the maximum of the outbreak under control indicate that its cost-efficacy is low.

The Effect of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting Program on the Use of Restraint and Seclusion.

BACKGROUND: Patients in inpatient psychiatry settings are uniquely vulnerable to harm. As sources of harm, research and policy efforts have specifically focused on minimizing and eliminating restraint and seclusion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting (IPFQR) program attempts to systematically measure and reduce restraint and seclusion. We evaluated facilities' response to the IPFQR program and differences by ownership, hypothesizing that facilities reporting these measures for the first time will show a greater reduction and that ownership will moderate this effect. METHODS: Using a difference-in-differences design and exploiting variation among facilities that previously reported on these measures to The Joint Commission, we examined the effect of the IPFQR public reporting program on the use and duration of restraint and seclusion from the end of 2012 through 2017. RESULTS: There were a total of 9705 observations of facilities among 1841 unique facilities. Results suggest the IPFQR program reduced duration of restraint by 48.96% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 16.69%-68.73%] and seclusion by 53.54% (95% CI, 19.71%-73.12%). There was no change in odds of zero restraint and, among for-profits only, a decrease of 36.89% (95% CI, 9.32%-56.07%) in the odds of zero seclusion. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first examination of the effect of the IPFQR program on restraint and seclusion, suggesting the program was successful in reducing their use. We did not find support for ownership moderating this effect. Additional research is needed to understand mechanisms of response and the impact of the program on nontargeted aspects of quality.

Restraint, seclusion and time-out among children and youth in group homes and residential treatment centers: a latent profile analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many children and youth living in residential units have experienced multiple traumas that may result in challenging behaviors. Among a range of professional responses, staff may use restraint, seclusion and time-out to manage these behaviors. OBJECTIVE: To enhance our understanding of these restrictive interventions in residential units as a means of improving professional practices involving children and youth in out-of-home care. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Administrative data were used. Restrictive intervention data for 324 children and youth (29 units) over a 6-month period were extracted. METHODS: Latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups of children and youth with distinct restrictive intervention profiles. Children and youth in these profiles were compared on individual (age, sex, ethnic group, length of stay in unit, reasons for services) and environmental characteristics (unit type, type of services, specialized designation). RESULTS: Restrictive interventions, especially time-outs, were frequent (5136 interventions; 69% time-outs), yet approximately half of the sample did not experience any. Restraints, seclusions and time-outs differed in frequency, duration and reason for use. A two-profile model was favored for children and youth who were subjected to restrictive interventions (classification accuracy = 94%). Children and youth in these two profiles differed from each other, and from those not subjected to restrictive interventions, on numerous individual and environmental characteristics. CONCLUSION: The use of restrictive interventions is frequent, and attention should be paid to individual and environmental risk factors identified in this study (i.e., being a boy, non-Caucasian, taken into care for neglect, and having a longer stay in unit).

Universal screening of high-risk neonates, parents, and staff at a neonatal intensive care unit during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Since February 21, 2020, SARS-CoV-2 has spread exponentially worldwide. Neonatal patients needing intensive care are considered a vulnerable population. To report the results of a policy based on multi-timepoint surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 of all neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), their parents, and all healthcare providers in a part of Italy with a high prevalence of the infection. Observational study conducted from 21 February to 21 April 2020. Intervention consisted of (a) parental triage on arrival at the neonatal ward; (b) universal testing with nasopharyngeal swabs and blood testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies; (c) use of continuous personal protective equipment at the NICU by parents and staff. A total of 6726 triage procedures were performed on 114 parents, and 954 nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 226 individuals. Five (2.2%) asymptomatic individuals (2 parents and 3 healthcare providers) tested positive on nasopharyngeal swabs and were kept isolated for 14 days. Of 75 admitted newborn, no one tested positive on nasopharyngeal swabs or antibody tests. Three parents presented with fever or flu-like symptoms at triage; they tested negative on swabs.Conclusion: With universal screening of neonates, parents, and staff, there were no cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among the neonates admitted to a NICU in an area with a high incidence of SARS-CoV-2. Our experience could be usefully compared with other strategies with a view to developing future evidence-based guidelines for managing high-risk neonates in case of new epidemics. What is Known: • The novel coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 has since spread worldwide at a remarkable rate, with more than 2.5 million confirmed cases. • Pediatric population may be less affected from COVID-19 than adult population but infants and newborn babies seem to be more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. What is New: • Using an approach based on triage; testing with nasopharyngeal swabs and serology; and use of personal protective equipment, there were no cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among neonates in a NICU in a high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 area. • Positive and asymptomatic individuals were identified and isolated early allowing the containment of infection's spread among healthcare providers and parents.

Impact of patient isolation on emergency department length of stay: A retrospective cohort study using the Registry for Emergency Care.

OBJECTIVE: The number of patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting to Australian EDs continues to impose a burden on healthcare services. Isolation is an important aspect of infection prevention and control, but has been associated with undesirable consequences among hospital inpatients. The aim of the present study was to determine if isolation is associated with an increased length of stay (LOS) in the ED. METHODS: The Registry for Emergency Care Project is a prospective cohort study with a series of nested sub-studies. The present study was a retrospective analysis of adult patients allocated an Australasian Triage Scale category of 1 or 2 who presented to a tertiary ED between 18 and 31 May 2020. The primary outcome was ED LOS. Regression methods were used to determine the independent association between ED isolation and LOS. RESULTS: There were 447 patients who met inclusion criteria, of which 123 (28%) were managed in isolation. The median (interquartile range) ED LOS was 259 (210-377) min for the isolation group and 204 (126-297) min for the non-isolation group, a difference in median ED LOS of 55 min (P < 0.001). Isolation was independently associated with a 23% increase in ED LOS (P = 0.002) and doubled the odds of an ED stay of more than 4 h (adjusted odds ratio 2.2 [1.4-3.4], P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Consistent with the anecdotal experience of Australian ED clinicians, the present study demonstrated an increased ED LOS for patients managed in isolation. Enhanced infection prevention and control precautions will be required during and beyond the current pandemic, creating significant ongoing challenges for emergency care systems.

The role of isolation rooms, facemasks and intensified hand hygiene in the prevention of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission in a pulmonary clinical setting.

From December 25, 2019 to January 31, 2020, 33 cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were identified in the Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, China, yet none of the affiliated HCWs was infected. Here we analyzed the infection control measures used in three different departments in the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University and correlated the measures with the corresponding infection data of HCWs affiliated with these departments. We found that three infection control measures, namely the isolation of the presumed positive patients, the use of facemasks and intensified hand hygiene play important roles in preventing nosocomial transmission of COVID-19.