预防还是屏障?重新考虑姑息治疗中的接触和隔离措施:一项系统的范围审查。

Henry T He, Shannon Bunn, Brittany Rance
{"title":"预防还是屏障?重新考虑姑息治疗中的接触和隔离措施:一项系统的范围审查。","authors":"Henry T He, Shannon Bunn, Brittany Rance","doi":"10.1017/ash.2025.10096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Infection control measures like contact precautions may conflict with patient-centered palliative care principles, but their efficacy and harms in this context remain understudied. This review evaluates how contact precautions affect quality of life, social connectedness, and infection control efficacy in palliative care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic scoping review.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Palliative care settings (eg, palliative care units and hospices).</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults and children receiving palliative care, with no restrictions on age or comorbidity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>English-language studies on contact precautions in palliative care were included. Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase were searched from inception to December 20, 2024, using terms related to antimicrobial resistance, contact precautions, and palliative care. No publication type or status restrictions were applied. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies were included, primarily from Germany (73%) and using qualitative methods (80%). Most focused on patients in palliative care units or hospices, though geographic and methodological limitations restrict generalizability. Common challenges included fear, loneliness, disrupted intimacy, and inconsistent protocols. Contact precautions were often bundled with other infection prevention interventions, limiting the ability to assess their specific impact. Terminology varied widely. No study directly evaluated the efficacy of contact precautions in reducing antimicrobial-resistant organism (ARO) transmission, though one pediatric study reported liberal protocols and no nosocomial ARO infections.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A case-by-case approach is needed to balance infection control with patient dignity and quality of life. Consistent terminology and more robust, mixed-methods research are essential to inform evidence-based protocols in diverse settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":72246,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","volume":"5 1","pages":"e174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12345051/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Precaution or barrier? Reconsidering contact and isolation measures in palliative care: a systematic scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Henry T He, Shannon Bunn, Brittany Rance\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ash.2025.10096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Infection control measures like contact precautions may conflict with patient-centered palliative care principles, but their efficacy and harms in this context remain understudied. This review evaluates how contact precautions affect quality of life, social connectedness, and infection control efficacy in palliative care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic scoping review.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Palliative care settings (eg, palliative care units and hospices).</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults and children receiving palliative care, with no restrictions on age or comorbidity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>English-language studies on contact precautions in palliative care were included. Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase were searched from inception to December 20, 2024, using terms related to antimicrobial resistance, contact precautions, and palliative care. No publication type or status restrictions were applied. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies were included, primarily from Germany (73%) and using qualitative methods (80%). Most focused on patients in palliative care units or hospices, though geographic and methodological limitations restrict generalizability. Common challenges included fear, loneliness, disrupted intimacy, and inconsistent protocols. Contact precautions were often bundled with other infection prevention interventions, limiting the ability to assess their specific impact. Terminology varied widely. No study directly evaluated the efficacy of contact precautions in reducing antimicrobial-resistant organism (ARO) transmission, though one pediatric study reported liberal protocols and no nosocomial ARO infections.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A case-by-case approach is needed to balance infection control with patient dignity and quality of life. Consistent terminology and more robust, mixed-methods research are essential to inform evidence-based protocols in diverse settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"e174\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12345051/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2025.10096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2025.10096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:接触预防等感染控制措施可能与以患者为中心的姑息治疗原则相冲突,但在这种情况下,其疗效和危害仍有待研究。本综述评估了接触预防如何影响姑息治疗的生活质量、社会联系和感染控制效果。设计:系统的范围审查。环境:姑息治疗环境(例如,姑息治疗单位和临终关怀院)。参与者:接受姑息治疗的成人和儿童,无年龄或合并症限制。方法:纳入有关姑息治疗中接触预防措施的英语研究。Ovid MEDLINE和Ovid Embase从创建到2024年12月20日进行检索,使用与抗菌素耐药性、接触预防和姑息治疗相关的术语。没有应用发布类型或状态限制。该方案已在开放科学框架上注册,并遵循系统评价的首选报告项目和范围评价的元分析扩展指南。结果:纳入了15项研究,主要来自德国(73%),采用定性方法(80%)。大多数集中在姑息治疗单位或临终关怀的病人,尽管地理和方法的局限性限制了推广。常见的挑战包括恐惧、孤独、中断的亲密关系和不一致的协议。接触预防措施通常与其他感染预防干预措施捆绑在一起,限制了评估其具体影响的能力。术语差异很大。没有研究直接评估接触预防措施在减少抗微生物耐药菌(ARO)传播方面的效果,尽管一项儿科研究报告了自由方案和无院内ARO感染。结论:需要采取具体情况具体分析的方法来平衡感染控制与患者尊严和生活质量。一致的术语和更稳健的混合方法研究对于在不同环境中为循证方案提供信息至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Precaution or barrier? Reconsidering contact and isolation measures in palliative care: a systematic scoping review.

Objective: Infection control measures like contact precautions may conflict with patient-centered palliative care principles, but their efficacy and harms in this context remain understudied. This review evaluates how contact precautions affect quality of life, social connectedness, and infection control efficacy in palliative care.

Design: Systematic scoping review.

Setting: Palliative care settings (eg, palliative care units and hospices).

Participants: Adults and children receiving palliative care, with no restrictions on age or comorbidity.

Methods: English-language studies on contact precautions in palliative care were included. Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase were searched from inception to December 20, 2024, using terms related to antimicrobial resistance, contact precautions, and palliative care. No publication type or status restrictions were applied. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

Results: Fifteen studies were included, primarily from Germany (73%) and using qualitative methods (80%). Most focused on patients in palliative care units or hospices, though geographic and methodological limitations restrict generalizability. Common challenges included fear, loneliness, disrupted intimacy, and inconsistent protocols. Contact precautions were often bundled with other infection prevention interventions, limiting the ability to assess their specific impact. Terminology varied widely. No study directly evaluated the efficacy of contact precautions in reducing antimicrobial-resistant organism (ARO) transmission, though one pediatric study reported liberal protocols and no nosocomial ARO infections.

Conclusions: A case-by-case approach is needed to balance infection control with patient dignity and quality of life. Consistent terminology and more robust, mixed-methods research are essential to inform evidence-based protocols in diverse settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信