Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T12:15:13.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Evaluation of Hospital Special-Ventilation-Room Pressures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Nancy Rice ,
Andrew Streifel  and
Donald Vesley
Nancy Rice
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Andrew Streifel
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Donald Vesley*
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
*
School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Box 807 Mayo, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To quantitate the magnitude and consistency of positive (airflow out) and negative (airflow in) hospital special-ventilation-room (SVR) airflow.

Design:

A room-pressure evaluation was conducted during two seasons on a total of 18 rooms: standard rooms, airborne infection isolation rooms, and protective environment rooms. The pressures were measured using a digital pressure gaugepiezoresistive pressure sensor that measured pressure differentials. With doors closed, the rooms were measured a minimum of 30 times each for a cooling season and a heating season.

Results:

The standard rooms showed the least amount of variability in pressure differential, with an average of −0.2 Pa (median, −0.2 Pa), and an interquartile range (IQR) of 0.4 Pa. Airborne infection isolation rooms showed more variability in pressure, with an average of −0.3 Pa (median, −0.2 Pa) and an IQR of 0.5 Pa. Protective environment rooms had the greatest fluctuation in pressure, with an average of 8.3 Pa (median, 7.7 Pa) and an IQR of 8.8 Pa. Dramatic pressure changes were observed during this evaluation, which may have been influenced by room architectural differences (sealed vs unsealed); heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning zone interactions; and stack effect.

Conclusion:

The pressure variations noted in this study, which potentially affect containment or exclusion of contaminants, support the need for standardization of pressure requirements for SVRs. To maintain consistent pressure levels, creating an airtight seal and continuous pressure monitoring may be necessary.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 2001 , pp. 19 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Ikeda, RM, Birkhead, GS, DiFerdinando, GT JrBornstein, DL, Dooley, SW, Kubica, GP, et al. Nosocomial tuberculosis: an outbreak of a strain resistant to seven drugs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:152–159.Google Scholar
2.Fraser, VJ, Johnson, K, Primack, J, Jones, M, Medoff, G, Dunagan, WC. Evaluation of rooms with negative pressure ventilation used for respiratory isolation in seven midwestern hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:623–628.Google Scholar
3.American Institute of Architects Academy of Architecture for Health and USDHHS. Guidelines for minimum requirements for construction and equipment in hospitals. In: Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospital and Health Care Facilities, 1996-1997. Washington, DC: AIA Press; 1996.Google Scholar
4.Murray, WA, Streifel, AJ, O'Dea, TJ, Rhame, FS. Ventilation for protection of immune compromised patients. ASHRAE Transactions 1988;94:1185–1192.Google Scholar
5.Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care facilities, 1994—CDC. Notice of final revisions to the “Guidelines for Preventing the Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care facilities, 1994.” Fed Regist 1994;59:54242–54303.Google Scholar
6.First, MW. Ventilation for biomedical research, biotechnology, and diagnostic facilities. In: Liberman, DF, Gordon, JG, eds. Biohazards Management Handbook. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1989:45–72.Google Scholar
7.Nicas, M, Sprinson, JE, Royce, SE, Harrison, RJ, Macher, JM. Isolation rooms for tuberculosis control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:619–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Hitchings, DT. Laboratory Space Pressurization Control Systems. ASHRAE Journal 1994;362:36–40.Google Scholar
9.Rousseau, CP, Rhodes, WW. HVAC system provisions to minimize the spread of tuberculosis bacteria. ASHRAE Transactions 1993;99:1201–1204.Google Scholar
10.National Fire Protection Association. Life Safety Code 101. Quincy, MA: NFPA; 1997.Google Scholar
11.Streifel, AJ, Marshall, JW. Parameters for ventilation controlled environments in hospitals. In: Design, Construction, and Operation of Healthy Buildings. IAQ 97. Bethesda, MD: ASHRAE Press; 1998.Google Scholar