↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Contact Precautions on Frequency of Hospital Adverse Events

Overview of attention for article published in Infection control and hospital epidemiology (Online), August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The Effect of Contact Precautions on Frequency of Hospital Adverse Events
Published in
Infection control and hospital epidemiology (Online), August 2015
DOI 10.1017/ice.2015.192
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine whether use of contact precautions on hospital ward patients is associated with patient adverse events DESIGN Individually matched prospective cohort study SETTING The University of Maryland Medical Center, a tertiary care hospital in Baltimore, Maryland METHODS A total of 296 medical or surgical inpatients admitted to non-intensive care unit hospital wards were enrolled at admission from January to November 2010. Patients on contact precautions were individually matched by hospital unit after an initial 3-day length of stay to patients not on contact precautions. Adverse events were detected by physician chart review and categorized as noninfectious, preventable and severe noninfectious, and infectious adverse events during the patient's stay using the standardized Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool. RESULTS The cohort of 148 patients on contact precautions at admission was matched with a cohort of 148 patients not on contact precautions. Of the total 296 subjects, 104 (35.1%) experienced at least 1 adverse event during their hospital stay. Contact precautions were associated with fewer noninfectious adverse events (rate ratio [RtR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.95; P=.02) and although not statistically significant, with fewer severe adverse events (RtR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46-1.03; P=.07). Preventable adverse events did not significantly differ between patients on contact precautions and patients not on contact precautions (RtR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.59-1.24; P=.41). CONCLUSIONS Hospital ward patients on contact precautions were less likely to experience noninfectious adverse events during their hospital stay than patients not on contact precautions. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;00(0):1-7.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 21 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 22 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,383,943
of 34,560,573 outputs
Outputs from Infection control and hospital epidemiology (Online)
#757
of 6,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,188
of 303,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection control and hospital epidemiology (Online)
#5
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,560,573 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.