Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the face of the continually worsening COVID-19 pandemic, jails and prisons have become the greatest vectors of community transmission and are a point of heightened crisis and fear within the global crisis. Critical public health tools to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 are medical isolation and quarantine, but use of these tools is complicated in prisons and jails where decades of overuse of punitive solitary confinement is the norm. This has resulted in advocates denouncing the use of any form of isolation and attorneys litigating to end its use. It is essential to clarify the critical differences between punitive solitary confinement and the ethical use of medical isolation and quarantine during a pandemic. By doing so, then all those invested in stopping the spread of COVID-19 in prisons can work together to integrate medically sound, humane forms of medical isolation and quarantine that follow community standards of care rather than punitive forms of solitary confinement to manage COVID-19.

Healthcare staff use coercive measures to manage patients at acute risk of harm to self or others, but their effect on patients' mental health is underexplored. This nationwide Swiss study emulated a trial to investigate the effects of coercive measures on the mental health of psychiatric inpatients at discharge. We analysed retrospective longitudinal data from all Swiss adult psychiatric hospitals that provided acute care (2019-2021). The primary exposure was any coercive measure during hospitalization; secondary exposures were seclusion, restraint and forced medication. Our primary outcome was Health of the Nations Outcome Scale (HoNOS) score at discharge. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to emulate random assignment to the exposure. Of 178,369 hospitalizations, 9.2% (  = 18,800) included at least one coercive measure. In patients exposed to coercive measures, mental health worsened a small but statistically significant amount more than in non-exposed patients. Those who experienced at least one coercive measure during hospitalization had a significantly higher HoNOS score (1.91-point,  < .001, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.73; 2.09) than those who did not experience any coercive measure. Results were similar for seclusion (1.60-point higher score,  < .001, 95% CI: 1.40; 1.79) and forced medication (1.97-point higher score,  < .001, 95% CI: 1.65; 2.30). Restraint had the strongest effect (2.83-point higher score,  < .001, 95% CI: 2.38; 3.28). Our study presents robust empirical evidence highlighting the detrimental impact of coercive measures on the mental health of psychiatric inpatients. It underscores the importance of avoiding these measures in psychiatric hospitals and emphasized the urgent need for implementing alternatives in clinical practice.

By April 2, 2020, >1 million persons worldwide were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We used a mathematical model to investigate the effectiveness of social distancing interventions in a mid-sized city. Interventions reduced contacts of adults >60 years of age, adults 20-59 years of age, and children <19 years of age for 6 weeks. Our results suggest interventions started earlier in the epidemic delay the epidemic curve and interventions started later flatten the epidemic curve. We noted that, while social distancing interventions were in place, most new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were averted, even with modest reductions in contact among adults. However, when interventions ended, the epidemic rebounded. Our models suggest that social distancing can provide crucial time to increase healthcare capacity but must occur in conjunction with testing and contact tracing of all suspected cases to mitigate virus transmission.

Most persons with confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have no or mild symptoms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, communities need efficient methods to monitor asymptomatic patients to reduce transmission. We describe the structure and operating protocols of a community treatment center (CTC) run by Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH) in South Korea. SNUH converted an existing facility into a CTC to isolate patients who had confirmed COVID-19 but mild or no symptoms. Patients reported self-measured vital signs and symptoms twice a day by using a smartphone application. Medical staff in a remote monitoring center at SNUH reviewed patient vital signs and provided video consultation to patients twice daily. The CTC required few medical staff to perform medical tests, monitor patients, and respond to emergencies. During March 5-26, 2020, we admitted and treated 113 patients at this center. CTCs could be an alternative to hospital admission for isolating patients and preventing community transmission.

Objective The aim of this study was to identify quantitative data on the use of seclusion and restraint in different countries and on initiatives to reduce these interventions. Methods Combined literature review on initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint, and epidemiological data on the frequency and means of use in the 21st century in different countries. Unpublished study was detected by contacting authors of conference presentations. Minimum requirements for the inclusion of data were reporting the incidence of coercive measures in complete hospital populations for defined periods and related to defined catchment areas. Results There are initiatives to gather data and to develop new clinical practice in several countries. However, data on the use of seclusion and restraint are scarcely available so far. Data fulfilling the inclusion criteria could be detected from 12 different countries, covering single or multiple hospitals in most counties and complete national figures for two countries (Norway, Finland). Both mechanical restraint and seclusion are forbidden in some countries for ethical reasons. Available data suggest that there are huge differences in the percentage of patients subject to and the duration of coercive interventions between countries. Conclusions Databases on the use of seclusion and restraint should be established using comparable key indicators. Comparisons between countries and different practices can help to overcome prejudice and improve clinical practice.

The effectiveness of contact isolation for decreasing the spread of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) has been questioned. The aim of this study was to establish the benefits of contact isolation over standard precautions for reducing the incidence density of ESBL-E colonisation and infection in adult medical and surgical wards with an active surveillance culture programme. We did a cluster-randomised crossover trial in adult wards in four European university hospitals. Medical, surgical, or combined medical–surgical wards without critical care were randomised to continue standard precautions alone or implement contact isolation alongside standard precautions for 12 months, followed by a 1 month washout period and 12 months of the alternate strategy. Randomisation was done via a computer-generated sequence, with a block size of two consecutive wards. Only laboratory technicians and data analysts were masked to allocation. Patients were screened for ESBL-E carriage within 3 days of admission, once a week thereafter, and on discharge. The primary outcome was the incidence density of ESBL-E, defined as the acquisition rate per 1000 patient-days at risk at the ward level and assessed in the per-protocol population, which included all patients screened at least twice with a length of stay of more than 1 week for each intervention period. No specific safety measures were assessed given the minimal risk of adverse events. The trial is registered, ISRCTN57648070. We enrolled 20 wards from four hospitals in Germany (eight wards), the Netherlands (four wards), Spain (four wards), and Switzerland (four wards). Between Jan 6, 2014, and Aug 31, 2016, 38 357 patients were admitted to these wards. Among 15 184 patients with a length of stay of more than 1 week, 11 368 patients (75%) were screened at least twice. The incidence density of ward-acquired ESBL-E was 6·0 events per 1000 patient-days at risk (95% CI 5·4–6·7) during periods of contact isolation and 6·1 (5·5–6·7) during periods of standard precautions (p=0·9710). Multivariable analysis adjusted for length of stay, percentage of patients screened, and prevalence in first screening cultures yielded an incidence rate ratio of 0·99 (95% CI 0·80–1·22; p=0·9177) for care under contact isolation compared with standard precautions. Contact isolation showed no benefit when added to standard precautions for controlling the spread of ESBL-E on non-critical care wards with extensive surveillance screening. European Commission.

Contact isolation of infected or colonised hospitalised patients is instrumental to interrupting multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) cross-transmission. Many studies suggest an increased rate of adverse events associated with isolation. We aimed to compare isolated to non-isolated patients in intensive care units (ICUs) for the occurrence of adverse events and medical errors. Methods We used the large database of the Iatroref III study that included consecutive patients from three ICUs to compare the occurrence of pre-defined medical errors and adverse events among isolated vs. non-isolated patients. A subdistribution hazard regression model with careful adjustment on confounding factors was used to assess the effect of patient isolation on the occurrence of medical errors and adverse events. Results Two centres of the Iatroref III study were eligible, an 18-bed and a 10-bed ICU (nurse-to-bed ratio 2.8 and 2.5, respectively), with a total of 1,221 patients. After exclusion of the neutropenic and graft transplant patients, a total of 170 isolated patients were compared to 980 non-isolated patients. Errors in insulin administration and anticoagulant prescription were more frequent in isolated patients. Adverse events such as hypo- or hyperglycaemia, thromboembolic events, haemorrhage, and MDRO ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) were also more frequent with isolation. After careful adjustment of confounders, errors in anticoagulant prescription [subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) = 1.7, p  = 0.04], hypoglycaemia (sHR = 1.5, p  = 0.01), hyperglycaemia (sHR = 1.5, p  = 0.004), and MDRO VAP (sHR = 2.1, p  = 0.001) remain more frequent in isolated patients. Conclusion Contact isolation of ICU patients is associated with an increased rate of some medical errors and adverse events, including non-infectious ones.

BackgroundIsolation precautions have negative effects on patient safety, psychological well-being, and healthcare worker contact. However, it is not known whether isolation precautions affect certain hospital-related outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the effect of isolation precautions on hospital-related outcomes and cost of care.DesignRetrospective, propensity-score matched cohort study of inpatients admitted to general internal medicine (GIM) services at three academic hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada between January 2010 and December 2012.ParticipantsAdult (≥18 years of age) patients on isolation precautions for respiratory illnesses and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were matched to controls based on propensity scores derived from nine covariates: age, sex, Resource Intensity Weight, number of hospital readmissions within 90 days, total length of stay for hospital admissions within 90 days, site of admission, month of isolation, year of isolation, and Case Mix Group.Main MeasuresThirty-day readmission rates and emergency department visits, hospital length of stay, expected length of stay, adverse events, in-hospital mortality, patient complaints, and cost of care in Canadian doll ars (CAD).Key ResultsA total of 17,649 non-isolated patients were admitted to the participating hospitals during the study period. We identified 1506 patients isolated for respiratory illnesses and 745 patients isolated for MRSA. Compared to non-isolated individuals, those on isolation precautions for respiratory illnesses stayed 17 % longer (95 % CI: 9 %, 25 %), stayed 9 % longer than expected (95 % CI: 3 %, 15 %), and had 23 % higher cost of care (95 % CI: 14 %, 32 %). Patients isolated for MRSA had similar outcomes, but they also had a 4.4 % higher (95 % CI: 1.4 %, 7.3 %) rate of readmission to hospital within 30 days.ConclusionsIsolation precautions are associated with adverse effects which may result in poorer hospital outcomes. Balancing the benefits for the many with the harms to the few will be a future challenge.

The use of coercive measures such as seclusion and restraint in forensic mental healthcare settings is widespread but controversial. Efforts to reduce these measures require knowledge of patient-related risk factors. The present study aimed to identify and confirm factors related to seclusion and restraint that can be assessed upon admission among men and women admitted to forensic hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We included cross-sectional Ontario Mental Health Reporting System admission data for adult patients admitted to 10 forensic psychiatric hospitals between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2023. We determined patient demographic, administrative, and clinical characteristics associated with seclusion and physical and manual restraint episodes during the first three days of admission. We conducted logistic Generalized Linear mixed Models (GLMM) to examine the association between the independent variables and restraint and seclusion while accounting for variability across facilities. Of 7635 patients, 30.2% (n = 2302) were secluded, and 3.7% (n = 286) were restrained within their first three days of admission. Secluded patients were more likely to be young adults, male, and scored higher on violence and aggression measures. Being admitted due to fitness-related reasons, lack of insight, medication non-adherence, higher scores on the mania scale and cognitive impairment further contributed to the higher odds of being secluded, whereas neurocognitive disorder diagnosis and elopement behavior were protective factors. Restrained patients were also more likely to be young adults, have a diagnosis of mood or anxiety, neurodevelopmental or personality disorder, and scored higher on violence and aggression measures. Fitness-related status, medication non-adherence, and cognitive impairment further contributed to this model of restraint. Indigenous self-identification and immigration status were not significant contributors to either model. Clinicians can assess indicators associated with seclusion and restraint when forensic patients are admitted to forensic hospitals or during the first three days of their stay, enabling effective targeting of those needs to reduce the use of coercive measures.