通过接触筛查评估院内 MRSA 传播率。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1186/s13756-024-01448-8
Maria Konstantinovski, Crista van Geest, Marguerite Bruijning, Lindsay Kroon-de Keizer, Jacco Wallinga, Nathalie van Burgel, Karin-Ellen Veldkamp
{"title":"通过接触筛查评估院内 MRSA 传播率。","authors":"Maria Konstantinovski, Crista van Geest, Marguerite Bruijning, Lindsay Kroon-de Keizer, Jacco Wallinga, Nathalie van Burgel, Karin-Ellen Veldkamp","doi":"10.1186/s13756-024-01448-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The prevention of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) transmission in the healthcare setting is a priority in Infection Control practices. A cornerstone of this policy is contact tracing of nosocomial contacts after an unexpected MRSA finding. The objective of this retrospective study was to quantify the rates of MRSA transmission in different clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multi-centre study included MRSA contact screening results from two regional hospitals and one academic hospital. MRSA contact tracing investigations from 2000 until 2019 were reviewed and post-contact screening results were included of index patients with an MRSA-positive culture and their unprotected contacts. Available typing results were used to rule out incidental findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 27,377 contacts screened after MRSA exposure, 21,488 were Health Care Workers (HCW) and 4816 patients. Post-contact screening was initiated for a total of 774 index cases, the average number of screened contacts per index case was 35.7 (range 1 to 640). MRSA transmission was observed in 0.15% (41) of the contacts, 19 (0.09%) HCW and 22 (0.46%) patients. The number needed to screen to detect one MRSA transmission was 667. The highest risk of MRSA transmission occurred during patient-to-patient contacts, with transmission rates varying from 0.32 to 1.32% among the participating hospitals. No transmissions were detected in HCW (n=2834) in the outpatient setting, and the rate of transmissions among HCW contacts on the wards was 0.13% (19 of 15,874). Among 344 contacts of patients with contact precautions, no transmissions were detected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reconsidering current MRSA contact tracing practices may lead to a more targeted approach with a lower number needed to screen.</p>","PeriodicalId":7950,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11348754/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rate of nosocomial MRSA transmission evaluated via contact screening.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Konstantinovski, Crista van Geest, Marguerite Bruijning, Lindsay Kroon-de Keizer, Jacco Wallinga, Nathalie van Burgel, Karin-Ellen Veldkamp\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13756-024-01448-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The prevention of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) transmission in the healthcare setting is a priority in Infection Control practices. A cornerstone of this policy is contact tracing of nosocomial contacts after an unexpected MRSA finding. The objective of this retrospective study was to quantify the rates of MRSA transmission in different clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multi-centre study included MRSA contact screening results from two regional hospitals and one academic hospital. MRSA contact tracing investigations from 2000 until 2019 were reviewed and post-contact screening results were included of index patients with an MRSA-positive culture and their unprotected contacts. Available typing results were used to rule out incidental findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 27,377 contacts screened after MRSA exposure, 21,488 were Health Care Workers (HCW) and 4816 patients. Post-contact screening was initiated for a total of 774 index cases, the average number of screened contacts per index case was 35.7 (range 1 to 640). MRSA transmission was observed in 0.15% (41) of the contacts, 19 (0.09%) HCW and 22 (0.46%) patients. The number needed to screen to detect one MRSA transmission was 667. The highest risk of MRSA transmission occurred during patient-to-patient contacts, with transmission rates varying from 0.32 to 1.32% among the participating hospitals. No transmissions were detected in HCW (n=2834) in the outpatient setting, and the rate of transmissions among HCW contacts on the wards was 0.13% (19 of 15,874). Among 344 contacts of patients with contact precautions, no transmissions were detected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reconsidering current MRSA contact tracing practices may lead to a more targeted approach with a lower number needed to screen.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11348754/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01448-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01448-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:预防耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)在医疗环境中的传播是感染控制工作的重点。这一政策的基石是在意外发现 MRSA 后对医院内接触者进行接触追踪。这项回顾性研究旨在量化不同临床环境中的 MRSA 传播率:这项多中心研究包括两家地区医院和一家学术医院的 MRSA 接触者筛查结果。研究回顾了 2000 年至 2019 年期间的 MRSA 接触者追踪调查,并纳入了 MRSA 培养呈阳性的指数患者及其无保护接触者的接触后筛查结果。现有的分型结果用于排除偶然发现:在暴露于 MRSA 后接受筛查的 27,377 名接触者中,21,488 人为医护人员 (HCW),4816 人为患者。共对 774 例指数病例进行了接触后筛查,每例指数病例的平均筛查接触人数为 35.7 人(范围为 1-640 人)。在 0.15%(41 人)的接触者、19(0.09%)名医务人员和 22(0.46%)名患者中观察到 MRSA 传播。发现一次 MRSA 传播所需的筛查人数为 667 人。MRSA 传播的最高风险发生在患者与患者之间的接触中,参与医院的传播率从 0.32% 到 1.32% 不等。在门诊环境中未发现人机共用工作者(n=2834)传播MRSA,病房中人机共用工作者接触者的传播率为0.13%(15874人中有19人)。在344名采取接触预防措施的患者接触者中,未发现任何传播:重新考虑目前的 MRSA 接触者追踪方法可能会使筛查更有针对性,所需人数更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rate of nosocomial MRSA transmission evaluated via contact screening.

Background: The prevention of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) transmission in the healthcare setting is a priority in Infection Control practices. A cornerstone of this policy is contact tracing of nosocomial contacts after an unexpected MRSA finding. The objective of this retrospective study was to quantify the rates of MRSA transmission in different clinical settings.

Methods: This multi-centre study included MRSA contact screening results from two regional hospitals and one academic hospital. MRSA contact tracing investigations from 2000 until 2019 were reviewed and post-contact screening results were included of index patients with an MRSA-positive culture and their unprotected contacts. Available typing results were used to rule out incidental findings.

Results: Of 27,377 contacts screened after MRSA exposure, 21,488 were Health Care Workers (HCW) and 4816 patients. Post-contact screening was initiated for a total of 774 index cases, the average number of screened contacts per index case was 35.7 (range 1 to 640). MRSA transmission was observed in 0.15% (41) of the contacts, 19 (0.09%) HCW and 22 (0.46%) patients. The number needed to screen to detect one MRSA transmission was 667. The highest risk of MRSA transmission occurred during patient-to-patient contacts, with transmission rates varying from 0.32 to 1.32% among the participating hospitals. No transmissions were detected in HCW (n=2834) in the outpatient setting, and the rate of transmissions among HCW contacts on the wards was 0.13% (19 of 15,874). Among 344 contacts of patients with contact precautions, no transmissions were detected.

Conclusions: Reconsidering current MRSA contact tracing practices may lead to a more targeted approach with a lower number needed to screen.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -INFECTIOUS DISEASES
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
3.60%
发文量
140
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control is a global forum for all those working on the prevention, diagnostic and treatment of health-care associated infections and antimicrobial resistance development in all health-care settings. The journal covers a broad spectrum of preeminent practices and best available data to the top interventional and translational research, and innovative developments in the field of infection control.
期刊最新文献
Environmental cleaning barriers and mitigation measures identified through two initiatives in four countries, 2018-2023: a commentary. WHO/INRUD prescribing indicators with a focus on antibiotics utilization patterns at outpatient department of Adigrat general hospital, Tigrai, Ethiopia: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Contextual barriers to infection prevention and control program implementation in hospitals in Latin America: a mixed methods evaluation. Antimicrobial surface coating in the emergency department as protective technology for infection control (ASEPTIC): a pilot randomized controlled trial. Successful control of an environmental reservoir of NDM-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae associated with nosocomial transmissions in a low-incidence setting.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1