Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Acinetobacter baumannii on computer interface surfaces of hospital wards and association with clinical isolates

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Computer keyboards and mice are potential reservoirs of nosocomial pathogens, but routine disinfection for non-water-proof computer devices is a problem. With better hand hygiene compliance of health-care workers (HCWs), the impact of these potential sources of contamination on clinical infection needs to be clarified.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was conducted in a 1600-bed medical center of southern Taiwan with 47 wards and 282 computers. With education and monitoring program of hand hygiene for HCWs, the average compliance rate was 74% before our surveillance. We investigated the association of methicillin-resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA), <it>Pseudomonas aeruginosa </it>and <it>Acinetobacter baumannii</it>, three leading hospital-acquired pathogens, from ward computer keyboards, mice and from clinical isolates in non-outbreak period by pulsed field gel electrophoresis and antibiogram.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our results revealed a 17.4% (49/282) contamination rate of these computer devices by <it>S. aureus</it>, <it>Acinetobacter </it>spp. or <it>Pseudomonas </it>spp. The contamination rates of MRSA and <it>A. baumannii </it>in the ward computers were 1.1% and 4.3%, respectively. No <it>P. aeruginosa </it>was isolated. All isolates from computers and clinical specimens at the same ward showed different pulsotypes. However, <it>A. baumannii </it>isolates on two ward computers had the same pulsotype.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>With good hand hygiene compliance, we found relatively low contamination rates of MRSA, <it>P. aeruginosa </it>and <it>A. baumannii </it>on ward computer interface, and without further contribution to nosocomial infection. Our results suggested no necessity of routine culture surveillance in non-outbreak situation.</p

Influence of disinfectant solutions on test materials used for the determination of masticatory performance

Funda??o de Amparo ? Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecu?ria de Minas Gerais (EPAMIG)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient?fico e Tecnol?gico (CNPq)Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior (CAPES)Masticatory function can be evaluated objectively as the capacity of an individual to fragment solid food after a fixed number of chewing cycles, the so-called masticatory performance (MP). The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of four different test materials (Optosil, Optocal, Zetapuls, and Perfil) and five disinfection protocols by aspersion and immersion (no disinfection, 2% glutaraldehyde, 2% chlorhexidine, 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, and 70% alcohol) on the MP, determined at three moments (24 hours, 15 and 60 days) after storing the fragmented blocks. MP was evaluated by calculating X50 through the sieving technique and the Rosim-Ramler equation. The weight and microbiologic count (colony forming units, CFUs) of chewed blocks were measured to identify any variations that would make MP determination unfeasible. Differences in MP were observed among the materials (p 0.05). The time and disinfection type had no influence on MP (p > 0.05). The number of CFUs differed between the nondisinfected group and all other disinfection groups at all time points (p < 0.01). No other significant difference in CFU count between disinfection groups was observed. In conclusion, disinfection did not alter the reliability of the test materials for the MP calculation for up to 60 days

How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Inanimate surfaces have often been described as the source for outbreaks of nosocomial infections. The aim of this review is to summarize data on the persistence of different nosocomial pathogens on inanimate surfaces. METHODS: The literature was systematically reviewed in MedLine without language restrictions. In addition, cited articles in a report were assessed and standard textbooks on the topic were reviewed. All reports with experimental evidence on the duration of persistence of a nosocomial pathogen on any type of surface were included. RESULTS: Most gram-positive bacteria, such as Enterococcus spp. (including VRE), Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA), or Streptococcus pyogenes, survive for months on dry surfaces. Many gram-negative species, such as Acinetobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens, or Shigella spp., can also survive for months. A few others, such as Bordetella pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae, Proteus vulgaris, or Vibrio cholerae, however, persist only for days. Mycobacteria, including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and spore-forming bacteria, including Clostridium difficile, can also survive for months on surfaces. Candida albicans as the most important nosocomial fungal pathogen can survive up to 4 months on surfaces. Persistence of other yeasts, such as Torulopsis glabrata, was described to be similar (5 months) or shorter (Candida parapsilosis, 14 days). Most viruses from the respiratory tract, such as corona, coxsackie, influenza, SARS or rhino virus, can persist on surfaces for a few days. Viruses from the gastrointestinal tract, such as astrovirus, HAV, polio- or rota virus, persist for approximately 2 months. Blood-borne viruses, such as HBV or HIV, can persist for more than one week. Herpes viruses, such as CMV or HSV type 1 and 2, have been shown to persist from only a few hours up to 7 days. CONCLUSION: The most common nosocomial pathogens may well survive or persist on surfaces for months and can thereby be a continuous source of transmission if no regular preventive surface disinfection is performed