search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology (2019), 40,328–332 doi:10.1017/ice.2018.342


Original Article


Shedding of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by colonized patients during procedures and patient care activities


Heba Alhmidi MD1,JenniferL.Cadnum BS1,Sreelatha Koganti MD1, Annette L. Jencson CIC1, Joseph D. Rutter BS1, Robert A. Bonomo MD2,3,Brigid M. Wilson PhD2,JeanMarie Mayer MD4,


Matthew H. Samore MD5 and Curtis J. Donskey MD2,3 1Research Service, Louis Stokes Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, 2Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, 3Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, 4University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah and 5University of Utah School of Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, Salt Lake City, Utah


Abstract


Objective: Medical procedures and patient care activities may facilitate environmental dissemination of healthcare-associated pathogens such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).


Design: Observational cohort study of MRSA-colonized patients to determine the frequency of and risk factors for environmental shedding of MRSA during procedures and care activities in carriers with positive nares and/or wound cultures. Bivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with environmental shedding.


Setting: A Veterans Affairs hospital. Participants: This study included 75 patients in contact precautions for MRSA colonization or infection.


Results: Of 75 patients in contact precautions for MRSA, 55 (73%) hadMRSAin nares and/or wounds and 25 (33%) had positive skin cultures. For the 52 patients with MRSA in nares and/or wounds and at least 1 observed procedure, environmental shedding of MRSA occurred more frequently during procedures and care activities than in the absence of a procedure (59 of 138, 43% vs 8 of 83, 10%; P < .001). During procedures, increased shedding occurred ≤0.9 m versus >0.9 m from the patient (52 of 138, 38% vs 25 of 138, 18%; P = .0004). Contamination occurred frequently on surfaces touched by personnel (12 of 38, 32%) and on portable equipment used for procedures (25 of 101, 25%). By bivariate analysis, the presence of a wound withMRSA was associated with shedding (17 of 29, 59%versus 6 of 23, 26%; P = .04).


Conclusions: Environmental shedding of MRSA occurs frequently during medical procedures and patient care activities. There is a need for effective strategies to disinfect surfaces and equipment after procedures.


(Received 17 August 2018; accepted 9 December 2018)


Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an impor- tant healthcare-associated pathogen that can be spread from patient to patient. The hands of healthcare personnel are generally considered the most important vector for MRSA transmission. However, environmental surfaces may also contribute to transmis- sion.1–3 Patients may acquire MRSA through direct contact with contaminated surfaces, or indirect transfer may occur when per- sonnel touch contaminated surfaces prior to contacting patients.2 To prevent MRSA transmission, there is a need for a better


understanding of patient andmedical care characteristics that confer an increased risk for sheddingMRSA. In previous studies, skin and/ or environmental contamination has been associated with increased


Author for correspondence: Curtis J. Donskey, Email: Curtis. Donskey@va.gov. Cite this article: Alhmidi H, et al. (2019). Shedding of methicillin-resistant


Staphylococcus aureus by colonized patients during procedures and patient care activities. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 40: 328–332, https://doi.org/ 10.1017/ice.2018.342


© 2019 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.


nasal density of MRSA, indwelling devices, decreased mobility, and diarrhea in the setting of a high burden of MRSA in stool.4–9 Recently, Pineles et al10 identified certain types of care activities that were associated with increased risk for contamination of cover gowns and gloves, including wound care, dressing, and providing hygiene and bathing assistance. We hypothesized that medical procedures and patient care activities would similarly facilitate environmental dissemination of MRSA. To test this hypothesis, we conducted an observational cohort study of MRSA-colonized patients to determine the frequency of and risk factors for environ- mental shedding during procedures and care activities.


Methods Setting


The Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center includes a 215-bed hospital and an adjacent 250-bed long-termcare facility (LTCF). For routine surveillance, the anterior nares of all patients are screened for MRSA upon admission, ward transfer, and discharge. Patients


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132