Dipping into the Clostridium difficile pool: Are alcohol-based dispensers fomites for C difficile?

Role of Clostridioides difficile in hospital environment and healthcare workers

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) was traditionally considered to be transmitted within healthcare environment, from other patients or healthcare workers (HCW). Recently, this idea has been challenged. Our objective was to determine the extent of C. difficile contamination in hospital environment with a simplified method for C. difficile recovery. Environmental samples were taken from rooms of patients positive for CDI (Case) and negative for toxigenic C. difficile (Control). Environmental sampling was performed at the time a fecal sample was taken for CDI diagnosis, 48 h after, and 10 days after. HCW hands were also sampled. A total of 476 environmental samples were collected, 246 samples from "Case" rooms and 230 from "Control". Overall, 15.34% of environmental samples were positive for toxigenic C. difficile (TCD), 20.72% of "Case" rooms samples and 9.57% of the samples from "Control" rooms (p = 0.001). When samples from "Case" rooms were analyzed by sampling time, at diagnosis 52.94% were positive, 38.46% were positive at 48 h after symptom resolution and 23.07% were positive after course of treatment. Overall, the most contaminated site corresponded to the bathroom tap, followed by the toilet. We recovered TCD from alcohol-based dispensers and from 4.2% of HCW hands. We found a high proportion of surfaces contaminated with TCD, as well as hand colonization. Notably, even after isolation measures were terminated, there was still TCD contamination.

Clostridioides difficile contamination in a clinical microbiology laboratory?

OBJECTIVES

Clostridioides difficile infection has traditionally been considered to be transmitted predominantly within health-care settings. It is not recognized as a pathogen that presents a risk of laboratory acquisition. Data on laboratory contamination and acquisition by laboratory personnel are lacking. Our objective was to assess environmental contamination by C. difficile and its potential for transmission in a clinical microbiology laboratory.

METHODS

Laboratory surfaces were screened for C. difficile. Samples were taken in areas that handle C. difficile isolates (high-exposure (HE) areas), areas adjacent to HE areas or those processing faecal samples (medium-exposure (ME) areas), and areas that do not process faecal samples or C. difficile isolates (low-exposure (LE) areas). We examined C. difficile carriage (hands/rectal samples) of laboratory workers.

RESULTS

A total of 140 environmental samples were collected from two HE areas (n = 56), two ME areas (n = 56) and two LE areas (n = 28). Overall, 37.8% (37/98) of surfaces were contaminated with C. difficile, and 17.3% (17/98) with toxigenic C. difficile (TCD). HE areas were significantly more contaminated with TCD than LE areas (38.1% (16/42) versus 0.0% (0/14), p 0.005) and ME areas (38.1% (16/42) versus 2.4% (1/42), p <0.001). Hands were colonized with TCD in 11.8% (4/34) of cases. We found no rectal carriage of C. difficile.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a significant proportion of laboratory surfaces to be contaminated with toxigenic C. difficile, as well as hand colonization of laboratory personnel. We recommend specific control measures for high-risk areas and laboratory personnel working in these areas.