1988 figure, ranging from $40,000 to A potential solution for this dilemma $50,000 per room.” was investigated by Rosenbaum et al. would be to a means for mass isolation that would “seek be inexpensive and feasible for most space within a facilities…by transform[ing] existing hospital into an airborne infection isolation unit with the capacity to isolate large numbers of patients in a negative-pressure The researchers attempted to convert the environment.”18 physical therapy gymnasium into a negative pressure room capable of handling hospital’s approximately 30 patients. They created a negative pressure room with minor modifications using model HEPA-filtered forced air to maintain “four Aramsco FA 2000 EC machines”18 circulation in a room that was calculated to have a volume of 29,300 cubic feet to the standards of the CDC Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Healthcare Facilities from 2003 all within an hour. While successful in theory, it was not tested with patients, procedures, or equipment that was not brand new, and other real world conditions. It warrants further research in conditions. “real world” An alternative that has since become an option since SARS has been the availability of prefabricated isolation rooms and antechamber attachments to patient rooms, there are many prefabricated isolation rooms and antechamber attachments to the door. Companies patient’s such as Renfrew Group International, Bioquell, and Abatement Technologies have designed these temporary enclosures to be: Set up and broken down rapidly Maintain proper air pressure to sustain a negative pressure environment Have the essential amenities such as hand wash station, dressing areas built into the chambers Be flexible and manageable to be able to be deployed in a emergency room bay, or to
1988 figure, ranging from $40,000 to $50,000 per room.” A potential solution for this dilemma was investigated by Rosenbaum et al. would be to “seek a means for mass isolation that would be inexpensive and feasible for most facilities…by transform[ing] existing space within a hospital into an airborne infection isolation unit with the capacity to isolate large numbers of patients in a negative-pressure environment.”18 The researchers attempted to convert the hospital’s physical therapy gymnasium into a negative pressure room capable of handling approximately 30 patients. They created a negative pressure room with minor modifications using “four Aramsco FA 2000 EC model HEPA-filtered forced air machines”18 to maintain circulation in a room that was calculated to have a volume of 29,300 cubic feet to the standards of the CDC Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Healthcare Facilities from 2003 all within an hour. While successful in theory, it was not tested with patients, procedures, or equipment that was not brand new, and other real world conditions. It warrants further research in “real world” conditions. An alternative that has since become an option since SARS has been the availability of prefabricated isolation rooms and antechamber attachments to patient rooms, there are many prefabricated isolation rooms and antechamber attachments to the patient’s door. Companies such as Renfrew Group International, Bioquell, and Abatement Technologies have designed these temporary enclosures to be: Set up and broken down rapidly Maintain proper air pressure to sustain a negative pressure environment Have the essential amenities such as hand wash station, dressing areas built into the chambers Be flexible and manageable to be able to be deployed in a emergency room bay, or to