Wong Holly, Eso Katherine, Ip Ada, Jones Jessica, Kwon Yoojin, Powelson Susan, de Grood Jill, Geransar Rose, Santana Maria, Joffe A Mark, Taylor Geoffrey, Missaghi Bayan, Pearce Craig, Ghali William A, Conly John
W21C Research and Innovation Centre, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, GD01 TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 4Z6.
Health Sciences Library, Libraries and Cultural Resources, University of Calgary, HSC 1450, Health Sciences Centre, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 4N1.
Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 7;4:152. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0131-2.
Though often used to control outbreaks, the efficacy of ward closure is unclear. This systematic review sought to identify studies defining and describing ward closure in outbreak control and to determine impact of ward closure as an intervention on outbreak containment.
We searched these databases with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, 1946 to 7 July 2014; EMBASE, 1974 to 7 July 2014; CINAHL, 1937 to 8 July 2014; and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2005 to May 2014. We also searched the following: IndMED; LILACS; reference lists from retrieved articles; conference proceedings; and websites of the CDCP, the ICID, and the WHO. We included studies of patients hospitalized in acute care facilities; used ward closure as a control measure; used other control measures; and discussed control of the outbreak(s) under investigation. A component approach was used to assess study quality.
We included 97 English and non-English observational studies. None included a controlled comparison between ward closure and other interventions. We found that ward closure was often used as part of a bundle of interventions but could not determine its direct impact separate from all the other interventions whether used in parallel or in sequence with other interventions. We also found no universal definition of ward closure which was widely accepted.
With no published controlled studies identified, ward closure for control of outbreaks remains an intervention that is not evidence based and healthcare personnel will need to continue to balance the competing risks associated with its use, taking into consideration the nature of the outbreak, the type of pathogen and its virulence, mode of transmission, and the setting in which it occurs. Our review has identified a major research gap in this area.
尽管病房关闭措施常用于控制疫情暴发,但其效果尚不清楚。本系统评价旨在识别那些定义和描述了在疫情控制中实施病房关闭的研究,并确定将病房关闭作为一种干预措施对疫情遏制的影响。
我们检索了以下无语言限制的数据库:1946年至2014年7月7日的MEDLINE;1974年至2014年7月7日的EMBASE;1937年至2014年7月8日的CINAHL;以及2005年至2014年5月的Cochrane系统评价数据库。我们还检索了以下资源:印度医学数据库(IndMED);拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学数据库(LILACS);检索到的文章的参考文献列表;会议论文集;以及美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDCP)、国际疾病分类(ICID)和世界卫生组织(WHO)的网站。我们纳入了针对入住急性护理机构患者的研究;将病房关闭用作控制措施;使用了其他控制措施;并讨论了所调查疫情的控制情况。采用成分分析法评估研究质量。
我们纳入了97项英文和非英文的观察性研究。没有一项研究对病房关闭与其他干预措施进行对照比较。我们发现,病房关闭常常作为一系列干预措施的一部分使用,但无法确定其与所有其他干预措施(无论与其他干预措施同时使用还是相继使用)相比的直接影响。我们还发现,对于病房关闭没有一个被广泛接受的通用定义。
由于未发现已发表的对照研究,采用病房关闭来控制疫情暴发仍然是一种缺乏循证依据的干预措施,医护人员将需要继续权衡与其使用相关的相互竞争的风险,同时考虑疫情的性质、病原体的类型及其毒力、传播方式以及疫情发生的环境。我们的综述发现了该领域的一个重大研究空白。