Occurrence of skin and environmental contamination with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus before results of polymerase chain reaction at hospital admission become available

SHEA/IDSA/APIC Practice Recommendation: Strategies to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission and infection in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update

Previously published guidelines have provided comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute-care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing efforts to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) transmission and infection. This document updates the "Strategies to Prevent Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Transmission and Infection in Acute Care Hospitals" published in 2014.1 This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). It is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the American Hospital Association (AHA), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise.

Background Information: Isolation Routines

The isolation of patients with suspected or documented infections—to not spread to others—has been discussed for hundreds of years. Guidelines are many, methods are different, attitudes show vide variations, routines and procedures are still changing, regulations by law may be absent, and some healthcare professionals may be afraid of adverse outcomes of isolation [1–44]. Microbes that are spread in the environment, on the hands and equipment are invisible. The invisible agent does not call on attention before the infection; clinical disease, hospital infection or nosocomial infection is a factum that can be registered [23, 28, 29, 35–37]. How to stop the transmission is often “to believe and not believe” in infection control.

Overall bioburden by total colony count does not predict the presence of pathogens with high clinical relevance in hospital and community environments

BACKGROUND

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) affect millions of patients, increasing morbidity and mortality. Pathogens of HAIs originate from both the patient's own flora and the environment, including multi-drug-resistant organisms.

AIMS

To determine the bioburden on different types of high-touch surfaces, and to identify cultures to species level and stratify strains into those of low and high clinical relevance.

DESIGN

Association between bioburden and presence of pathogens of high clinical relevance (PHCR) in a tertiary care centre and urban environment.

METHODS

The overall bioburden measured by total colony count (TCC) was assessed using tryptic soy agar contact plates and two selective agars to improve detection of PHCR. Isolates were routinely identified to species level using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization - time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF). The definition of PHCR was based on listings outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

FINDINGS

In total, 1431 contact plates were processed from 477 surfaces: 153 from hospitals and 324 from publicly accessible institutions or devices. At least one PHCR was identified from cultures from 73 samples. TCC was found to be poorly correlated with the presence of PHCR.

CONCLUSION

TCC poorly predicted the presence of PHCR, rendering the results from environmental sampling difficult to interpret. MALDI-TOF enables the identification of large numbers of isolates from the environment at low cost. Further studies on environmental contamination should use MALDI-TOF to identify all pathogens grown.

View point: gaps in the current guidelines for the prevention of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infections

The authors advocate the addition of two preventative strategies to the current United State’s guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infections. It is known that Staphylococcus aureus, including Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), carriers are at a higher risk for the development of infections and they can easily transmit the organism. The carriage rate of Staph. aureus in the general population approximates 33%. The CDC estimates the carriage rate of MRSA in the United States is approximately 2%. The first strategy is preoperative screening of surgical patients for Staph. aureus, including MRSA. This recommendation is based upon the growing literature which shows a benefit in both prevention of infections and guidance in preoperative antibiotic selection. The second is performing MRSA active surveillance screening on healthcare workers. The carriage rate of MRSA in healthcare workers approximates 5% and there are concerns of transmission of this pathogen to patients. MRSA decolonization of healthcare workers has been reported to approach a success rate of 90%. Healthcare workers colonized with dangerous pathogens, including MRSA, should be assigned to non-patient contact work areas. In addition, there needs to be implemented a safety net for both the worker’s economic security and healthcare. Finally, a reporting system for the healthcare worker acquisition and infections with dangerous pathogens needs to be implemented. These recommendations are needed because Staph. aureus including MRSA is endemic in the United States. Policies regarding endemic pathogens which are to be implemented only upon the occurrence of a facility defined “outbreak” have to be questioned, since absence of infections does not mean absence of transmission. Optimizing these policies will require further research but until then we should error on the side of patient safety.

Assessment of Environmental Contamination with Pathogenic Bacteria at a Hospital Laundry Facility

Little is known about exposure to pathogenic bacteria among industrial laundry workers who work with soiled clinical linen. To study worker exposures, an assessment of surface contamination was performed at an industrial laundry facility serving hospitals in Seattle, WA, USA. Surface swab samples (n = 240) from the environment were collected during four site visits at 3-month intervals. These samples were cultured for Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Voluntary participation of 23 employees consisted of nasal swabs for detection of MRSA, observations during work, and questionnaires. Contamination with all three pathogens was observed in both dirty (laundry handling prior to washing) and clean areas (subsequent to washing). The dirty area had higher odds of overall contamination (≥1 pathogen) than the clean area (odds ratio, OR = 18.0, 95% confidence interval 8.9-36.5, P < 0.001). The odds of contamination were high for each individual pathogen: C. difficile, OR = 15.5; MRSA, OR = 14.8; and VRE, OR = 12.6 (each, P < 0.001). The highest odds of finding surface contamination occurred in the primary and secondary sort areas where soiled linens were manually sorted by employees (OR = 63.0, P < 0.001). The study substantiates that the laundry facility environment can become contaminated by soiled linens. Workers who handle soiled linen may have a higher risk of exposure to C. difficile, MRSA, and VRE than those who handle clean linens. Improved protocols for prevention and reduction of environmental contamination were implemented because of this study.

Strategies to Prevent Methicillin-ResistantStaphylococcus aureusTransmission and Infection in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Update

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) prevention efforts. This document updates “Strategies to Prevent Transmission of Methicillin-ResistantStaphylococcus aureusin Acute Care Hospitals,” published in 2008. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Effectiveness of hand hygiene depends on the patient's health condition and care environment

AIM

The present authors examined how patient hand contamination was associated with underlying disease and treatment environment in order to determine effective hand hygiene methods.

METHODS

Samples were collected from inpatients (45 with hematological malignancies, 48 postoperative), outpatients (48 undergoing hemodialysis, 55 on chemotherapy), and 44 individuals living in nursing homes. All participants provided informed consent for study participation. All subjects performed hand hygiene. Before and after hand hygiene, samples of bacteria were collected from the palm of the hand onto agar media. Bacteria were counted and bacterial strains were identified. The authors then collected smear samples from the contralateral palm and measured adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels.

RESULTS

Patient hand contamination was the highest in hemodialysis patients, followed by residents of nursing homes, postoperative patients, patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy, and patients of hematological malignancies. Regardless of the underlying disease and treatment environment, patients were able to reduce the number of bacterial colonies and ATP by proper hand hygiene. Compared with wet wipes, hand washing seemed to remove bacteria more effectively. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was detected in 30 subjects, none of whom were patients of hematological malignancies. Of these, 19 tested negative for MRSA after performing proper hand hygiene.

CONCLUSION

Patient hand contamination is affected by underlying disease and care environment, but can be reduced by encouraging proper hand washing. Proper patient hand hygiene can reduce MRSA on patients' hands, and thus may serve as an effective tool for prevention of healthcare-associated infections.

A bundle that includes active surveillance, contact precaution for carriers, and cefazolin-based antimicrobial prophylaxis prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in clean orthopedic surgery

BACKGROUND

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a frequent cause of orthopedic surgical site infections (SSIs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a bundle approach in the prevention of orthopedic MRSA SSIs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MRSA active surveillance and decolonization were performed preoperatively at our institution from July 2004 until 2007. In January 2008, a bundle approach comprising contact precautions for MRSA-positive patients and cefazolin-based antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) stewardship was implemented. Data on the prevalence of MRSA SSIs, antimicrobial use density, duration of AMP, and the use of an alcohol antiseptic agent (L/1,000 patient-days) were evaluated during 2 periods: July 2004-December 2007 (period A) and January 2008-December 2012 (period B).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The MRSA SSI rate during period B (0.97%; 19 out of 1,966) was significantly lower than that during period A (2.17%; 29 out of 1,333; P = .003). The infection rate correlated negatively with both the cefazolin antimicrobial use density (r = -0.76; P = .0002) and the use of an alcohol antiseptic agent (r = -0.68; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

An infection-prevention bundle consisting of contact precautions for carriers and AMP stewardship in addition to active surveillance was associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of orthopedic MRSA SSIs.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal real-time PCR: a predictive tool for contamination of the hospital environment

OBJECTIVE We sought to determine whether the bacterial burden in the nares, as determined by the cycle threshold (CT) value from real-time MRSA PCR, is predictive of environmental contamination with MRSA. METHODS Patients identified as MRSA nasal carriers per hospital protocol were enrolled within 72 hours of room admission. Patients were excluded if (1) nasal mupirocin or chlorhexidine body wash was used within the past month or (2) an active MRSA infection was suspected. Four environmental sites, 6 body sites and a wound, if present, were cultured with premoistened swabs. All nasal swabs were submitted for both a quantitative culture and real-time PCR (Roche Lightcycler, Indianapolis, IN). RESULTS At study enrollment, 82 patients had a positive MRSA-PCR. A negative correlation of moderate strength was observed between the CT value and the number of MRSA colonies in the nares (r=-0.61; P<0.01). Current antibiotic use was associated with lower levels of MRSA nasal colonization (CT value, 30.2 vs 27.7; P<0.01). Patients with concomitant environmental contamination had a higher median log MRSA nares count (3.9 vs 2.5, P=0.01) and lower CT values (28.0 vs 30.2; P<0.01). However, a ROC curve was unable to identify a threshold MRSA nares count that reliably excluded environmental contamination. CONCLUSIONS Patients with a higher burden of MRSA in their nares, based on the CT value, were more likely to contaminate their environment with MRSA. However, contamination of the environment cannot be predicted solely by the degree of MRSA nasal colonization.

Viewpoint: a response to "Screening and isolation to control methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: sense, nonsense, and evidence"

Surveillance and isolation for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become a controversial topic, one that causes heated debate and appears to be surrounded by both politics and industrial conflicts-of-interest. There have been calls from numerous authors for a movement away from rigid mandates and toward an evidence-based medicine approach. However, much of the evidence can be viewed with an entirely different interpretation. Two major studies with negative findings have had an adverse impact on recommendations regarding active detection and isolation (ADI) for MRSA. However the negative findings in these studies can be explained by shortcomings in study implementation rather than the ineffectiveness of ADI. The use of daily chlorhexidine bathing has also been proposed as an alternative to ADI in ICU settings. There are shortcomings regarding the evidence in the literature concerning the effectiveness of daily chlorhexidine bathing. One of the major concerns with universal daily chlorhexidine bathing is the development of bacterial resistance. The use of surveillance and isolation to address epidemics and common dangerous pathogens should solely depend upon surveillance and isolation's ability to prevent further spread to and infection of other patients through indirect contact. At present, there is a preponderance of evidence in the literature to support continuing use of surveillance and isolation to prevent the spread of MRSA.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an Academic Hospital Setting

Objective.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 alternative active screening strategies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): universal surveillance screening for all hospital admissions, targeted surveillance screening for intensive care unit admissions, and no surveillance screening.

Design.

Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision modeling.

Methods.

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the perspective of an 800-bed academic hospital with 40,000 annual admissions over the time horizon of a hospitalization. All input probabilities, costs, and outcome data were obtained through a comprehensive literature review. Effectiveness outcome was MRSA healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results.

In the base case, targeted surveillance screening was a dominant strategy (ie, was associated with lower costs and resulted in better outcomes) for preventing MRSA HAL Universal surveillance screening was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $14,955 per MRSA HAL In one-way sensitivity analysis, targeted surveillance screening was a dominant strategy across most parameter ranges. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also demonstrated that targeted surveillance screening was the most cost-effective strategy when willingness to pay to prevent a case of MRSA HAI was less than $71,300.

Conclusion.

Targeted active surveillance screening for MRSA is the most cost-effective screening strategy in an academic hospital setting. Additional studies that are based on actual hospital data are needed to validate this model. However, the model supports current recommendations to use active surveillance to detect MRSA.

Value of pre- and postoperative meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening in patients undergoing gastroenterological surgery

BACKGROUND

Data supporting active surveillance of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) for the prevention of postoperative infection remain controversial.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of MRSA screening in patients undergoing gastroenterological surgery.

METHOD

Nasal carriage of MRSA was screened using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay on two gastroenterological surgery wards (A and B). Occurrence of postoperative MRSA infection was analysed according to nasal MRSA carriage status (pre-operative carriage and postoperative acquisition).

FINDINGS

The incidence of pre-operative MRSA carriage was 9.7% on Ward A and 4.3% on Ward B (P = 0.009). Postoperative nasal MRSA acquisition was confirmed in 16.2% and 6.0% of patients, respectively (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of MRSA surgical site infections (SSIs) between patients with and without pre-operative nasal colonization on either ward. On Ward A, where MRSA nasal acquisition was more common, the MRSA infection rate in patients with postoperative nasal acquisition was 26.8%, which was significantly higher than the rates in patients with pre-operative MRSA colonization and patients without colonization during hospitalization. Postoperative nasal MRSA acquisition was an independent factor associated with MRSA infection on both wards [Ward A: odds ratio (OR) 7.192, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.981-17.352; Ward B: OR 5.761, 95% CI 1.429-23.220].

CONCLUSION

MRSA SSIs were prevented by a screening-based strategy in pre-operative MRSA carriers. Postoperative nasal acquisition was a significant factor affecting MRSA infection, and the effect of screening varied according to the incidence of postoperative MRSA acquisition on the ward.

Patients' potential role in the transmission of health care-associated infections: prevalence of contamination with bacterial pathogens and patient attitudes toward hand hygiene

BACKGROUND

Transmission of health care-associated infections (HAIs) has been primarily attributed to health care workers, and hand hygiene is considered the most important means to reduce transmission. Whereas hand hygiene research has focused on reducing health care worker hand contamination and improving hand hygiene compliance, contamination of patients' hands and their role in the transmission of HAIs remains unknown.

METHODS

Patients' hands were sampled by a "glove juice" recovery method and enumerated for the presence of common health care-associated pathogens. Patient demographics and other covariates were collected to determine their association with patient hand contamination. Patient attitudes and practices toward hand hygiene were also surveyed and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 100 patients in the study, 39% of hands were contaminated with at least 1 pathogenic organism, and 8% were contaminated with 2 or more pathogens 48 hours after admission. Patient admission from or discharge to an outside institution and self-reported functional limitations were the only covariates that were significantly associated with hand contamination.

CONCLUSION

Pathogenic organisms can be frequently detected on hands of acute care patients. Future studies are needed to better understand the relationship between patient hand contamination and the acquisition of HAIs in addition to the role patient hand hygiene can play in reducing HAIs.

Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization prevalence among Emergency Medical Services personnel

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal colonization among Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel is not well studied. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization can be a health hazard for both EMS personnel and patients. The aim of this study was to quantify the prevalence of MRSA colonization among EMS personnel. This study will help the scientific community understand the extent of this condition so that further protocols and policies can be developed to support the health and wellbeing of EMS personnel. Hypothesis/ Problem The hypothesis of this study was that the prevalence of MRSA colonization among EMS personnel is significantly higher than among the general population.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study. A total of 110 subjects were selected from two major US Mid-Atlantic fire departments. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization was detected by nasal swabbing. Nasal swabs were inoculated onto a special agar medium (C-MRSAgar) with polymerase chain reaction testing performed. One-sided binomial distribution at the Study Size 2.0 Web calculator was used. Using the Web calculator, p (H0 proportion) = 1.5%; a difference (H1-H0) 'Δ' = 4.53% can be detected at α = 5% and power = 80% with N = 110.

RESULTS

Samples were collected from 110 volunteers. Seven samples were positive for MRSA, resulting in a prevalence of 7/110 or 6.4% (95% CI, 1.8%-11%; P < .0003) compared with a 1.5% prevalence of MRSA colonization among the general population.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence that EMS personnel have a higher prevalence of MRSA colonization than the general population. This can be a risk to patients and can be recognized as an occupational hazard.

Is patient isolation the single most important measure to prevent the spread of multidrug-resistant pathogens?

Isolation or cohorting of infected patients is an old concept. Its purpose is to prevent the transmission of microorganisms from infected or colonized patients to other patients, hospital visitors, and health care workers, who may subsequently transmit them to other patients or become infected or colonized themselves. Because the process of isolating patients is expensive, time-consuming, often uncomfortable for patients and may impede care, it should be implemented only when necessary. Conversely, failure to isolate a patient with multidrug-resistant microorganisms may lead to adverse outcomes, and may ultimately be expensive when one considers the direct costs of an outbreak investigation and the indirect costs of lost productivity. In this review, we argue that contact precautions are essential to control the spread of epidemic and endemic multidrug-resistant microorganisms, and discuss limitations of some available data.

A perspective on the evidence regarding methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus surveillance

Two prominent studies have been used by policy makers to prevent the enactment of standards of care regarding active surveillance of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospital settings. In this brief review and perspective of those studies, we contend that both studies have serious limitations (i.e., the intervention group was not given optimal intervention) that may not have been scrutinized by many policy makers, health officials, and other researchers. These studies seem to have had a disproportionate impact on health-care policy despite their limitations. Furthermore, health-care policy and treatment standards need to reflect the preponderance of evidence with appropriate weight given to research studies based on their strengths and limitations. Only then can treatment standards that are effective against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus be adopted or refuted.

Quantifying the impact of extranasal testing of body sites for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization at the time of hospital or intensive care unit admission

OBJECTIVE

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of healthcare-associated infections. Recent legislative mandates require nares screening for MRSA at hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in many states. However, MRSA colonization at extranasal sites is increasingly recognized. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify the yield of extranasal testing for MRSA.

DESIGN

We searched MEDLINE from January 1966 through January 2012 for articles comparing nasal and extranasal screening for MRSA colonization. Studies were categorized by population tested, specifically those admitted to ICUs and those admitted to hospitals with a high prevalence (6% or greater) or low prevalence (less than 6%) of MRSA carriers. Data were extracted using a standardized instrument.

RESULTS

We reviewed 4,381 abstracts and 735 articles. Twenty-three articles met the criteria for analysis ((n = 39,479 patients). Extranasal MRSA screening increased the yield by approximately one-third over nares alone. The yield was similar at ICU admission (weighted average, 33%; range, 9%-69%) and hospital admission in high-prevalence (weighted average, 37%; range, 9%-86%) and low-prevalence (weighted average, 50%; range, 0%-150%) populations. For comparisons between individual extranasal sites, testing the oropharynx increased MRSA detection by 21% over nares alone; rectum, by 20%; wounds, by 17%; and axilla, by 7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Extranasal MRSA screening at hospital or ICU admission in adults will increase MRSA detection by one-third compared with nares screening alone. Findings were consistent among subpopulations examined. Extranasal testing may be a valuable strategy for outbreak control or in settings of persistent disease, particularly when combined with decolonization or enhanced infection prevention protocols.

Positive clinical risk factors predict a high rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in emergency department patients

BACKGROUND

This study was undertaken to determine the rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization predicted by clinical risk factors compared with determination by nasal swab culture and polymerase chain reaction in emergency department patients.

METHODS

From November 2009 to March 2011, patients seen in the emergency department were studied prospectively. The risk of MRSA colonization was determined by clinical risk factors, and both surveillance cultures and a polymerase chain reaction assay were performed in each patient.

RESULTS

A total of 277 patients was enrolled, and 31.4% (87/277) of patients had a positive surveillance culture or a MRSA polymerase chain reaction assay. The rate of colonization in patients with high-risk factors included the following: past history of colonization/infections, 60.0%; history of previous antibiotic use, 47.2%; more than 30 days hospitalization in the past 3 months, 43.9%; more than 10 days hospitalization in the past 3 months, 41.7%; and a history of hospitalization because of acute illness, 40.0%.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence rate of colonization in patients with a high risk of MRSA colonization exceeded 30%. Active surveillance cultures should be considered in patients at high risk for MRSA colonization.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus burden in nursing homes associated with environmental contamination of common areas

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether environmental cleaning and contamination are associated with variation in the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) between nursing homes.

DESIGN

Prospective study of environmental contamination and cleaning quality.

SETTING

Nursing home.

PARTICIPANTS

Ten California nursing homes.

MEASUREMENTS

Nursing homes were categorized into two groups based upon high and low differences in MRSA point prevalence and admission prevalence (delta prevalence) from nares screenings of nursing home residents. Environmental cleaning and infection control practices were evaluated by culturing common area objects for MRSA, assessing removal of intentionally applied marks visible only under ultraviolet (UV) light, and administering surveys on infection control and cleaning.

RESULTS

Overall, 16% (78/500) of objects were MRSA positive, and 22% (129/577) of UV-visible marks were removed. A higher proportion of MRSA-positive objects was found in the high (19%) than in low (10%) nursing home groups (P = .005). Infection control and cleaning policies varied, including the frequency of common room cleaning (median 2.5 times daily, range 1-3 times daily) and time spent cleaning per room (median 18 minutes, range 7-45 minutes). In multivariate models, MRSA-positive objects were associated with high delta prevalence nursing homes (odds ratio (OR) = 2.8, P = .005), less time spent cleaning each room (OR = 2.9, P < .001), and less-frequent cleaning of common rooms (OR = 1.5, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Substantial variation was found in MRSA environmental contamination, infection control practices, and cleaning quality. MRSA environmental contamination was associated with greater differences between MRSA point and admission prevalence, less-frequent common room cleaning, and less time spent cleaning per room, which suggests that modifying cleaning practices may reduce MRSA environmental contamination and burden in nursing homes.

National prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in inpatients at United States health care facilities, 2010

BACKGROUND

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remains one of the most prevalent multidrug-resistant organisms causing health care-associated infections. Limited data are available about how the prevalence of MRSA has changed over the past several years and what MRSA prevention practices have been implemented since the 2006 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc, MRSA survey.

METHODS

We conducted a national prevalence survey of MRSA colonization or infection in inpatients at US health care facilities. The survey was developed, received institutional review board approval, and then was distributed to all US Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc, members. Members were asked to complete the survey on 1 day during the period August 1 to December 30, 2010, reporting the number of inpatients with MRSA infection or colonization and facility- and patient-specific information.

RESULTS

Personnel at 590 facilities indicated a state and responded to the survey. All states were represented, except for Alaska and Washington, DC (mean, 12 facilities per state; range, 1-38). Respondents reported 4,476 MRSA-colonized/infected patients in 67,412 inpatients; the overall MRSA prevalence rate was 66.4 per 1,000 inpatients (25.3 infections and 41.1 colonizations per 1,000 inpatients). Active surveillance testing was conducted by 75.7% of the respondents; 39.6% used nonselective media, 37.2% used selective media, and 23.3% used polymerase chain reaction. Detailed data were provided on 3,176 MRSA-colonized/infected patients. Of those in whom colonization/infection status was reported (1,908/3,086 [61.8%] were MRSA colonized and 1,778/3,086 [38.2%] were MRSA infected), most MRSA-colonized or infected patients (78.3%) were detected within 48 hours of admission; the most common site of infection was skin and soft tissue (42.9%); and, using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's definitions, approximately 50% would be classified as health care-associated infections.

CONCLUSION

Our survey documents that the MRSA prevalence in 2010 is higher than that reported in our 2006 survey. However, the majority of facilities currently are performing active surveillance testing, and, compared with 2006, the rate of MRSA infection has decreased while the rate of MRSA colonization has increased. In addition, compared with 2006, the proportion of MRSA strains recovered from MRSA-colonized/infected patients that are health care-associated strains has deceased, and community-associated strains have increased.

MRSA: A Challenge to Norwegian Nursing Home Personnel

In Norway, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is increasing in primary healthcare, associated with imported cases and outbreaks in long-term care. According to Norwegian national guidelines, MRSA-exposed healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients are tested. Carriage of MRSA leads to exclusion from work in healthcare institutions. In this study, 388 staff members in 42 nursing homes in Oslo County responded to questions about personal experience with MRSA and of own attitudes to challenges associated with the control and treatment of MRSA patients. Half (52%) of the nursing staff were concerned of becoming infected with MRSA and the consequences of this would be for own social life, family, economy, and work restriction. The concern was associated with risk factors like old buildings not suitable for modern infection control work, low staffing rate (70% without specific training in healthcare and 32% without formal healthcare education), defective cleaning and decolonization, and lack of formal routines and capacity for isolation of MRSA patients. Since the Norwegian MRSA guideline permits patients with persistent MRSA infections to move freely around in nursing homes, the anxiety of the staff to become infected and excluded from job was real.