Selected article for: "endemic epidemic and great importance"

Author: Purssell, Edward; Gould, Dinah; Chudleigh, Jane
Title: Impact of isolation on hospitalised patients who are infectious: systematic review with meta-analysis
  • Document date: 2020_2_18
  • ID: w05fyy4u_48
    Snippet: However, again there was wide variation between studies. Data on these outcomes are given in Figures 5 and 6 , and the non-clinically significant risks in the Although at times there are discussions as to the necessity of contact precautions for drug resistant organisms, with some arguing that that there is mixed evidence for or against their use [49] another recent review has concluded that they are of great importance in the control of epidemic.....
    Document: However, again there was wide variation between studies. Data on these outcomes are given in Figures 5 and 6 , and the non-clinically significant risks in the Although at times there are discussions as to the necessity of contact precautions for drug resistant organisms, with some arguing that that there is mixed evidence for or against their use [49] another recent review has concluded that they are of great importance in the control of epidemic and endemic multidrug-resistant microorganisms. [50] The ethics of using contact precautions and other forms of isolation rely on a positive assessment of the balance between the risks and benefits of this to the individual concerned and that of the broader population of patients and staff. [51] However, even when this assessment is positive, it is important to ensure that any harm to the individual is minimised.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • benefit risk and individual harm: 1
    • broad population and mixed evidence: 1
    • endemic epidemic and great importance: 1, 2, 3
    • endemic epidemic and individual harm: 1, 2
    • endemic epidemic and mixed evidence: 1, 2
    • great importance and individual harm: 1, 2
    • great importance and mixed evidence: 1, 2
    • individual harm and mixed evidence: 1, 2