The hospitalised patients’ experience of being in protective/source isolation: A systematic review of qualitative evidence

Vottero, Beth; Rittenmeyer, Leslie

doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2012-63

Cited by 31 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For 18 (41.9 %) out of 43 of the reviews included in our sample, the CINAHL database had contributed at least one unique study (see Additional file 2 : Table S2, Potential unique included studies available from CINAHL) and, for 5 (11.6 %) of these [ 19 , 37 , 40 , 53 , 64 ], we found that all the included studies were available in the CINAHL database and had the potential to be retrieved from the database assuming a good strategy and appropriate indexing were in place.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) is generally thought to be a good source to search when conducting a review of qualitative evidence. Case studies have suggested that using CINAHL could be essential for reviews of qualitative studies covering topics in the nursing field, but it is unclear whether this can be extended more generally to reviews of qualitative studies in other topic areas.MethodsWe carried out a retrospective analysis of a sample of systematic reviews of qualitative studies to investigate CINAHL’s potential contribution to identifying the evidence. In particular, we planned to identify the percentage of included studies available in CINAHL and the percentage of the included studies unique to the CINAHL database. After screening 58 qualitative systematic reviews identified from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), we created a sample set of 43 reviews covering a range of topics including patient experience of both illnesses and interventions.ResultsFor all 43 reviews (21 %) in our sample, we found that some of the included studies were available in CINAHL. For nine of these reviews, all the studies that had been included in the final synthesis were available in the CINAHL database, so it could have been possible to identify all the included studies using just this one database, while for an additional 21 reviews (49 %), 80 % or more of the included studies were available in CINAHL. Consequently, for a total of 30 reviews, or 70 % of our sample, 80 % or more of the studies could be identified using CINAHL alone. 11 reviews, where we were able to recheck all the databases used by the original review authors, had included a study that was uniquely identified from the CINAHL database. The median % of unique studies was 9.09 %; while the range had a lowest value of 5.0 % to the highest value of 33.0 %.ConclusionsAssuming a rigorous search strategy was used and the records sought were accurately indexed, we could expect CINAHL to be a good source of primary studies for qualitative evidence syntheses. While we found some indication that CINAHL had the potential to provide unique studies for systematic reviews, we could only fully test this on a limited number of reviews, so we are less confident about this finding.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0069-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others have questioned the practice altogether as they could not find any benefits in terms of reducing infection and suggested that accurate hygiene measures would prove just as effective, while improving the quality of care and patient satisfaction as well as being less expensive [7]. There are also adverse effects of protective isolation to consider, not least that patients can suffer from being isolated in every sense of the word [8][9][10]. This survey shows that knowledge about the maintenance of protective environments in the HSCT setting is inadequate, reflecting poor communication between health care personnel working in the ward, hospital infection control and hospital maintenance services.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protective environment for hematopoietic cell transplant (HSCT) recipients: The Infectious Diseases Working Party EBMT analysis of global recommendations on health-care facilities

Styczyński

Tridello

Donnelly

et al. 2018

Bone Marrow Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International guidelines on protective environment for HSCT recipients proposed a set of 10 global recommendations in 2009 on protective environment (GRPE) concerning hospital room design and ventilation. The EBMT Infectious Diseases Working Party undertook a survey on the status on protective environment for HSCT recipients with the aim of surveying current practices and their agreement with GRPE recommendations. The questionnaire consisted of 37 questions divided into 5 sections about filtration, air changes, maintenance, and the protective environment in rooms and the surrounding unit. Overall, 177 centres (response rate 33%) from 36 countries responded, indicating that 99.4% of patient rooms were equipped with HEPA filters, but only 48.6% of the centre's staff were aware of, and could confirm, regular replacement of filters based on manufacturers' recommendations. Well-sealed rooms were used in terms of windows (70.6%), ceilings (35%), and plumbing pipes (51.4%). The sensor monitors in the patient room used to determine when the HEPA filters require changing were installed only in 18.1% of centres. Only 1 centre fulfilled all 10 GRPE recommendations, while 62 centres fulfilled the 3 level "A" recommendations. In conclusion, HEPA-filtered rooms are available in almost all centres, while fewer centres fulfilled other requirements. Knowledge on the details and maintenance of protective environments in the HSCT setting was inadequate, reflecting a lack of communication between the health personnel involved, hospital infection control and the hospital maintenance services.

show abstract

“…Prolonged protective isolation can lead to social isolation (Vottero & Rittenmeyer, 2012) and other psychosocial implications, such as loneliness (Biagioli, Piredda, Alvaro, & De Marinis, 2017;ElSadr, Noureddine, & Kelley, 2009), depression (El-Jawahri et al, 2015;Tecchio et al, 2013), anxiety (Abad, Fearday, & Safdar, 2010;Sasaki et al, 2000), anger (Vottero & Rittenmeyer, 2012) and insomnia (Kunitomi et al, 2010). Thus, healthcare providers have the responsibility to assess patients' perception of protective isolation in order to identify early those patients who are at risk for negative isolation experiences and to avoid the discontinuation of protective measures because of psychosocial implications (Proia-Lelouey & Letrecher, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing the perception of protective isolation in patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A multicentre prospective study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To identify which factors can influence the patients’ perception of protective isolation following Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT). Methods This is a prospective study conducted in 10 Italian centres, members of the Italian Group of stem cell transplant (GITMO). Patients’ perception of protective isolation was assessed using the ISOLA scale between 7 and 9 days post‐transplant. Statistical linear regression analysis was performed. Results The participants were 182 adult patients receiving autologous (48%) or allogeneic (52%) HSCT in protective isolation. Male sex (β = .152), education level (β = −.245), double room (β = .186), satisfaction with visiting hours (β = −.174) and emotional support from nurses (β = −.169) were independently associated with isolation‐related suffering. Significant predictors of the relationship with oneself included body temperature (β = −.179), fatigue (β = −.192) and emotional support from nurses (β = −.292). Factors independently associated with the relationship with others were education (β = −.230), chemotherapy cycles (β = −.218), pain (β = .150) and satisfaction with visiting hours (β = −.162). Conclusion Healthcare providers should pay greater attention in caring for those patients who are at risk for a negative isolation experience. Nurses should provide emotional support.

show abstract

The hospitalised patients’ experience of being in protective/source isolation: A systematic review of qualitative evidence

Cited by 31 publications

References 3 publications

What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?

What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?

Protective environment for hematopoietic cell transplant (HSCT) recipients: The Infectious Diseases Working Party EBMT analysis of global recommendations on health-care facilities

Factors influencing the perception of protective isolation in patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A multicentre prospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About