scholarly journals Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Prevalence Among Healthcare Workers in Contact Tracings in a Dutch Hospital

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s316-s317
Author(s):  
Veronica Weterings ◽  
Heidi Kievits ◽  
Miranda van Rijen ◽  
Jan Kluytmans

Background: In The Netherlands, the national guidelines on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevention and control advocate screening of healthcare workers (HCWs) after unprotected exposure to MRSA carriers. Although this strategy is largely successful, contact tracing of staff is a time-consuming and costly component. We evaluated our contact tracing policy for HCWs over the years 2010–2018. Methods: A retrospective, observational study was performed in a Dutch teaching hospital. All HCWs who had unprotected contact with an MRSA carrier were included in contact tracing. When there had been a long period of unprotected admission prior to an MRSA finding, or when the index case was an HCW, the entire (nursing) team was tested. All samples of HCWs who were tested for MRSA carriage as part of contact tracing from 2010 until 2018 were included. A pooled nose, throat, and perineum swab was collected using the eSwab medium (Copan) and inoculated on chromID MRSA agar plates (bioMérieux) after enrichment in a broth. Molecular typing was performed using multiple-locus variable number of tandem repeat analysis (MLVA). Results: In total, we included 8,849 samples (range, 677–1,448 samples per year) from 287 contact tracings (range, 26–55 contact tracings per year). Overall, 32 HCWs were colonized with MRSA (0.36%; 95% CI, 0.26%–0.51%). None of them developed a clinical infection. Moreover, 8 HCWs (0.10%; 95% CI, 0.05%–0.19%) were colonized with the same MLVA type as the index case and were detected in 6 of 287 contact tracings (2%). In 4 of 8 of these cases, a positive HCW was the index for undertaking contact tracing. In 3 of 8 cases, it was clear that the HCW who was identified in the contact tracing was the source of the outbreak and was the cause of invasive MRSA infections in patients. Notably, a different MLVA type as the index case was found in 24 HCWs (0.27%; 95% CI, 0.18%–0.40%) of whom 7 of 24 HCWs (29.2%) were intermittent carriers. Conclusions: This study revealed a sustained low MRSA prevalence among samples in contact tracing of HCWs over 9 years. Furthermore, it shows that when MRSA contact tracing is performed according to the national guideline, only 1 of 1,000 samples results in a secondary case. This is similar to the population carriage rate of MRSA in The Netherlands. More frequently, an unrelated strain is found. These findings raise questions regarding the efficacy of the current strategy to perform contact tracing after unprotected exposure.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S471-S471
Author(s):  
veronica Weterings ◽  
Heidi Kievits ◽  
Miranda van Rijen ◽  
Jan kluytmans

Abstract Background In The Netherlands, the national guidelines on MRSA prevention and control advocate screening of HCW after unprotected exposure to MRSA carriers. Although this strategy at large is successful, contact tracing of staff is a time consuming and costly component. We evaluated our contact tracing policy for HCW over the years 2010 – 2018. MRSA prevalence among samples in contact tracing Methods A retrospective, observational study was performed in a Dutch teaching hospital. All HCW who had unprotected contact with an MRSA carrier were included in contact tracing. When there had been a long period of unprotected admission prior to an MRSA finding, or when the index case was a HCW, than the entire (nursing) team was tested. All samples of HCWs who were tested for MRSA carriage as part of contact tracing from 2010 until 2018 were included. A pooled nose, throat and perineum swab was collected using the eSwab medium (Copan) and inoculated on chromID MRSA agar plates (bioMérieux) after enrichment in a broth. Results In total, we included 8,849 samples (range: 677 – 1,448 samples per year) from a total of 287 contact tracings (range: 26 – 55 contact tracings per year). Thirty two HCWs were colonized with MRSA (0.36%; 95%CI 0.26 – 0.51). None of them developed a clinical infection. Eight HCWs (0.10%; 95%CI 0.05% – 0.19%) were colonized with the same MLVA type as the index case, and were detected in 6/287 contact tracings (2%). In 4/8 of these cases, a positive HCW was the index for undertaking contact tracing. In 3/8 cases it was clear that the HCW who was identified in the contact tracing was the source of the outbreak and was the cause of invasive MRSA infections in patients. Notably, a different MLVA type as the index case was found in 24 HCWs (0,27%; 95%CI 0,18 – 0,40) of which 7/24 HCW (29,2%) were intermittent carriers. Conclusion This study revealed a sustained low MRSA prevalence among samples in contact tracing of healthcare workers, over nine years. Furthermore, it shows that when MRSA contact tracing is performed according to the national guideline only 1 out 1000 samples results in a secondary case. This is similar to the population carriage rate of MRSA in The Netherlands. More frequently, an unrelated strain is found. These findings raise question marks regarding the efficacy of the current strategy to perform contact tracing after unprotected exposure. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 624-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erwin Verkade ◽  
Thijs Bosch ◽  
Yvonne Hendriks ◽  
Jan Kluytmans

We describe an outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphybcoccus aureus (MRSA) ST398 in a nursing home in the Netherlands. Seven residents and 4 healthcare workers were identified with MRSA ST398, but 2 of the healthcare workers carried other strains. This study demonstrates that MRSA ST398 can spread in nursing homes.


2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
M WH Wulf ◽  
A Markestein ◽  
F T van der Linden ◽  
A Voss ◽  
C Klaassen ◽  
...  

We describe the first outbreak of non-typable methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on a surgical ward in the Netherlands in June 2007. Nine cases of infection and/or colonisation were found among patients and healthcare workers.


Author(s):  
Justus B. Abimana ◽  
Charles D. Kato ◽  
Joel Bazira

Whereas Staphylococcus aureus is a pathogen, it colonizes healthy people as normal flora without causing any symptoms or illness. Probably because of greater exposure, healthcare workers (HCWs) are more colonized, serving as reservoir for endogenous infections as well as dissemination. In developing countries including Uganda, there is scarcity of the literature on S. aureus carriage among HCWs, making infection control difficult. This study aimed at determining the nasal carriage rate and comparing the antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) isolates from HCWs of Kampala International University Teaching Hospital. Nasal swab specimens from HCWs were screened for MRSA using both phenotypic and genotypic methods. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the MRSA and MSSA isolates was performed using the Kirby–Bauer disc diffusion method. Out of the 97 participants, 28 (28.8%) participants were nasal carriers of S. aureus of which 13 (46.4%) were phenotypically MRSA (resistant to cefoxitin) and 8 (28.6%) were genotypically MRSA (had mecA gene). Only 6 isolates of the 13 isolates (46%) which showed resistance to cefoxitin had mecA gene detectable while 2 (13.3%) of the 15 cefoxitin susceptible isolates were found to carry mecA gene. The study thus shows that methicillin resistance in S. aureus may not only be determined by mecA gene.


2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabita Khatri ◽  
Narayan Dutt Pant ◽  
Raju Bhandari ◽  
Krishma Laxmi Shrestha ◽  
Chandrika D. Shrestha ◽  
...  

Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most common causes of nosocomial infections. Due to its multidrug resistant nature; infections due to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus are often very difficult to treat. Colonized health care workers are the important sources of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The objectives of this study were to determine the nasal carriage rate of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among health care workers at Kathmandu Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Nepal and to assess their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns.Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted among 252 health care workers from July to November 2013. Mannitol salt agar was used to culture the nasal swabs. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by Kirby- Bauer disc diffusion technique following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains were confirmed by using cefoxitin disc and by determining the minimum inhibitory concentration of oxacillin by agar dilution method.Results: Of 252 healthcare workers, 46(18.3%) were positive for Staphylococcus aureus among which 19(41.3%) were Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriers. Overall rate of nasal carriage of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was 7.5% (19/252).The higher percentages of lab personnel were nasal carriers of S. aureus (31.6%) and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (10.5%).The percentages of nasal carriage of S. aureus (35.7%) and Methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (14.3%) were highest in the health care workers from post operative department. Higher percentage of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were susceptible toward amikacin (100%) and vancomycin (100%) followed by cotrimoxazole (84.2%).Conclusions: High rates of nasal carriage of S. aureus and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were observed among the healthcare workers, which indicate the need of strict infection control measures to be followed to control the nosocomial infections.


2008 ◽  
Vol 27 (12) ◽  
pp. 1109-1111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Ibarra ◽  
Tristan Flatt ◽  
Diane Van Maele ◽  
Aisha Ahmed ◽  
Jaime Fergie ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document