Flocked nylon swabs versus RODAC plates for detection of multidrug-resistant organisms on environmental surfaces in intensive care units

Comparative performance of contact plate metod and swab method for surface microbial contamination on medical fabrics

BACKGROUND

The contact plate method is widely accepted and used in various fields where hygiene and contamination levels are crucial. Evidence regarding the applicability of the contact plate method for sampling fabric microbial contamination levels in real medical environments was limited. This study aimed to assess the applicability of the contact plate method for detecting microbial contamination on medical fabrics in a real healthcare environment, thereby providing a benchmark for fabric microbial sampling methods.

METHODS

In a level three obstetrics ward of a hospital, twenty-four privacy curtains adjacent to patient beds were selected for this study. The contact plate and swab method were used to collect microbial samples from the privacy curtains on the 1st, 7th, 14th, and 28th days after they were hung. The total colony count on each privacy curtain surface was calculated, and microbial identification was performed.

RESULTS

After excluding the effects of time, room type, and curtain location on the detected microbial load, the linear mixed-effects model analysis showed that contact plate method yielded lower colony counts compared to swab method (P < 0.001). However, the contact plate method isolated more microbial species than swab method (P < 0.001). 291 pathogenic strains were isolated using the contact plate method and 133 pathogenic strains were isolated via the swab method. There was no difference between the two sampling methods in the detection of gram-negative bacteria (P = 0.089). Furthermore, the microbial load on curtains in double-occupancy rooms was lower than those in triple-occupancy rooms (P = 0.021), and the microbial load on curtains near windows was lower than that near doors (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Contact plate method is superior to swab method in strain isolation. Swab method is more suitable for evaluating the bacterial contamination of fabrics.

Antimicrobial coatings for environmental surfaces in hospitals: a potential new pillar for prevention strategies in hygiene

Recent reports provide evidence that contaminated healthcare environments represent major sources for the acquisition and transmission of pathogens. Antimicrobial coatings (AMC) may permanently and autonomously reduce the contamination of such environmental surfaces complementing standard hygiene procedures. This review provides an overview of the current status of AMC and the demands to enable a rational application of AMC in health care settings. Firstly, a suitable laboratory test norm is required that adequately quantifies the efficacy of AMC. In particular, the frequently used wet testing (e.g. ISO 22196) must be replaced by testing under realistic, dry surface conditions. Secondly, field studies should be mandatory to provide evidence for antimicrobial efficacy under real-life conditions. The antimicrobial efficacy should be correlated to the rate of nosocomial transmission at least. Thirdly, the respective AMC technology should not add additional bacterial resistance development induced by the biocidal agents and co- or cross-resistance with antibiotic substances. Lastly, the biocidal substances used in AMC should be safe for humans and the environment. These measures should help to achieve a broader acceptance for AMC in healthcare settings and beyond. Technologies like the photodynamic approach already fulfil most of these AMC requirements.

MRSA Transmission in Intensive Care Units: Genomic Analysis of Patients, Their Environments, and Healthcare Workers

BACKGROUND

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-and now USA300 MRSA-is a significant intensive care unit (ICU) pathogen; healthcare worker (HCW) contamination may lead to patient cross-transmission.

METHODS

From September 2015 to February 2016, to study the spread of MRSA, we enrolled HCWs in 4 adult ICUs caring for patients on MRSA contact precautions. Samples were collected from patient body sites and high-touch surfaces in patient rooms. HCW hands, gloves, and personal protective equipment were sampled pre/post-patient encounter. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was used to compare isolates from patients, HCWs, and environment.

RESULTS

There were 413 MRSA isolates sequenced (38% USA300, 52% USA100) from 66 patient encounters. Six of 66 HCWs were contaminated with MRSA prior to room entry. Isolates from a single patient encounter were typically either USA100 or USA300; in 8 (12%) encounters both USA300 and USA100 were isolated. WGS demonstrated that isolates from patients, HCWs, and environment often were genetically similar, although there was substantial between-encounter diversity. Strikingly, there were 5 USA100 and 1 USA300 clusters that contained similar strains (<22 single-nucleotide variants [SNVs], with most <10 SNVs) within the cluster despite coming from different encounters, suggesting intra- and inter-ICU spread of strains, that is, 4 of these genomic clusters were from encounters in the same ICU; 5 of 6 clusters occurred within 1 week.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated frequent spread of MRSA USA300 and USA100 strains among patients, environment, and HCWs. WGS identified possible spread within and even between ICUs. Future analysis with detailed contact tracing in conjunction with genomic data may further elucidate pathways of MRSA spread and points for intervention.

Impact of doffing errors on healthcare worker self-contamination when caring for patients on contact precautions

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) doffing errors on healthcare worker (HCW) contamination with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs).

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

SETTING

The study was conducted at 4 adult ICUs at 1 tertiary-care teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

HCWs who cared for patients on contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococci, or multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli were enrolled. Samples were collected from standardized areas of patient body, garb sites, and high-touch environmental surfaces in patient rooms. HCW hands, gloves, PPE, and equipment were sampled before and after patient interaction. Research personnel observed PPE doffing and coded errors based on CDC guidelines.

RESULTS

We enrolled 125 HCWs; most were nurses (66.4%) or physicians (19.2%). During the study, 95 patients were on contact precautions for MRSA. Among 5,093 cultured sites (HCW, patient, environment), 652 (14.7%) yielded the target MDRO. Moreover, 45 HCWs (36%) were contaminated with the target MDRO after patient interactions, including 4 (3.2%) on hands and 38 (30.4%) on PPE. Overall, 49 HCWs (39.2%) made multiple doffing errors and were more likely to have contaminated clothes following a patient interaction (risk ratio [RR], 4.69; P = .04). All 4 HCWs with hand contamination made doffing errors. The risk of hand contamination was higher when gloves were removed before gowns during PPE doffing (RR, 11.76; P = .025).

CONCLUSION

When caring for patients on CP for MDROs, HCWs appear to have differential risk for hand contamination based on their method of doffing PPE. An intervention as simple as reinforcing the preferred order of doffing may reduce HCW contamination with MDROs.