We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Article |

Substantial Improvement in Compliance With Universal Precautions in an Emergency Department Following Institution of Policy

Gabor D. Kelen, MD; Gary B. Green, MD; David A. Hexter, MD; Dewitt C. Fortenberry, MD; Eric Taylor, MD; Deborah H. Fleetwood, RN; Keith T. Sivertson, MD
Arch Intern Med. 1991;151(10):2051-2056. doi:10.1001/archinte.1991.00400100121020.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Seven months following the introduction of an institutional policy mandating compliance with universal precautions (UPs), we observed 127 health care workers performing 1421 interventions on 155 critically ill and injured patients in an emergency department setting in July 1989. Results were compared with a similar study undertaken exactly 1 year previously when UPs were considered as guidelines only. Overall adherence to UPs improved from 44.0% to 72.7% from 1 year to the next. Adherence to UPs improved from 19.5% to 55.7% during interventions on patients with profuse bleeding and from 16.7% to 54.5% during performance of major procedures. Compliance improved from 47.9% to 81.0% for emergency departmentbased health care workers (residents, attending physicians, nurses, x-ray film technicians). Prehospital care providers, a group not accountable to the institution, remained particularly noncompliant with only 13% adherence. We conclude that mandating UPs as policy with a monitoring component is effective in ensuring a reasonable level of adherence. However, given current barrier technology, achieving appropriate levels of compliance during unscheduled visits by patients requiring immediate attention and rapid intervention remains a challenge.

(Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:2051-2056)


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

25 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.