Objective.: To determine whether increases in contact isolation precautions are associated with decreased adherence to isolation practices among healthcare workers (HCWs).Design.: Prospective cohort study from February 2009 to October 2009.Setting.: Eleven teaching hospitals.Participants.: HCWs.Methods.: One thousand thirteen observations conducted on HCWs. Additional data included the number of persons in isolation, types of HCWs, and hospital-specific contact precaution practices. Main outcome measures included compliance with individual components of contact isolation precautions (hand hygiene before and after patient encounter, donning of gown and glove upon entering a patient room, and doffing upon exiting) and overall compliance (all 5 measures together) during varying burdens of isolation.Results.: Compliance with hand hygiene was as follows: prior to donning gowns/gloves, 37.2%; gowning, 74.3%; gloving, 80.1%; doffing of gowns/gloves, 80.1%; after gown/glove removal, 61%. Compliance with all components was 28.9%. As the burden of isolation increased (20% or less to greater than 60%), a decrease in compliance with hand hygiene (43.6%—4.9%) and with all 5 components (31.5%—6.5%) was observed. In multivariable analysis, there was an increase in noncompliance with all 5 components of the contact isolation precautions bundle (odds ratio [OR], 6.6 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15-37.44];P= .03) and in noncompliance with hand hygiene prior to donning gowns and gloves (OR, 10.1 [95% CI, 1.84—55.54];P= .008) associated with increasing burden of isolation.Conclusions.: As the proportion of patients in contact isolation increases, compliance with contact isolation precautions decreases. Placing 40% of patients under contact precautions represents a tipping point for noncompliance with contact isolation precautions measures.

Differences in reported hand hygiene compliance rates were assessed on the basis of the unit affiliation of observers. In 2 hospitals, unit-based observers more often reported higher compliance rates than did non-unit-based observers (79% vs 58.6%; difference, 20.4%; P<.001). Nonstandardized data collection methods contribute to the variability in hand hygiene compliance rates.