Skip Navigation



Public Health Ethics Advance Access published online on May 5, 2008
Public Health Ethics, doi:10.1093/phe/phn014
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1/3/235    most recent
phn014v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Edmond, M.
Right arrow Articles by Diekema, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Edmond, M.
Right arrow Articles by Diekema, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. Available online at www.phe.oxfordjournals.org

Ethical Implications of Active Surveillance Cultures and Contact Precautions for Controlling Multidrug Resistant Organisms in the Hospital Setting

Michael Edmond*

Virginia Commonwealth University

Laurie Lyckholm

Virginia Commonwealth University

Daniel Diekema

University of Iowa

* Corresponding author: medmond{at}vcu.edu


  Abstract

Healthcare-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms continue to increase in incidence. To control the transmission of these pathogens, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, some have advocated active surveillance cultures of all hospitalized patients, followed by institution of contact precautions. While there has been extensive debate about the effectiveness of this approach in reducing infections, little attention has been given to the ethical issues raised by the intervention. Active surveillance for multidrug-resistant organisms is a quality improvement measure and ethical implications arise through the potential to inadvertently cause harm. Unintended adverse effects may include decreased contact with healthcare workers, increased depression and anxiety, and increased rates of noninfectious adverse events among patients placed in contact precautions. The potential risks and benefits are not distributed fairly; patients placed in contact precautions are exposed to the risks, while those not isolated experience the benefit. Ethical challenges involve a conflict between the interests of the individual patient and the patient population not already colonized with the organism. For healthcare systems, active surveillance increases the complexity of bed management, exacerbating problems with patient placement, patient throughput, emergency department overcrowding and ambulance diversion for some hospitals. It also poses ethical dilemmas regarding societal resource allocation. Investing in an unproven or marginally beneficial quality improvement activity such as this must be balanced against other public health priorities competing for scarce resources.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 BMJHome page
M. Millar
Should we screen low risk patients for meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus?
BMJ, October 8, 2009; 339(oct08_2): b4035 - b4035.
[Full Text]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.