Detection of Common Bacterial Pathogen in Hospital and Lab Settings and Their Anti-microbial Susceptibility Pattern in Various Medical Laboratories in Shendi Town, Sudan
Leila Mohamed A. Abdelgade, Mohamed Alrsheed Ahmed, G. M. Mahjaf, B. M. T. Gorish
{"title":"Detection of Common Bacterial Pathogen in Hospital and Lab Settings and Their Anti-microbial Susceptibility Pattern in Various Medical Laboratories in Shendi Town, Sudan","authors":"Leila Mohamed A. Abdelgade, Mohamed Alrsheed Ahmed, G. M. Mahjaf, B. M. T. Gorish","doi":"10.9734/ijpr/2023/v12i2222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Laboratory infections can be classified as occupational and nosocomial infections. Laboratory-related infections are generally recognized as a potential risk for clinical laboratory workers. Some bacteria can survive longer on dry surfaces and more on wet surfaces that can infect others and also environments. \nObjective: To detect common bacterial pathogens in various medical laboratories in Shendi City. \nMaterials and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted in Shendi City (Sudan) from August to December 2021. This study included 17 laboratories and 50 samples collected by wet exchange from various locations including laboratory surfaces, microscopes, centrifuges, CBC devices, staining racks, and CBC devices. \nResults: This study included Staphylococcus aureus (No=11) (22%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (No=10) (20%), Escherichia coli (No=1) (2%), Klebsiella pneumonia (No=9) (18%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (No=2) (4%). Significant growth of pathogenic bacteria was recoded. Among all the organisms isolated, there was moderate resistance to antibiotics, some bacteria were very resistant, others were resistant, and some organisms were resistant to some antibiotic they were highly sensitive to the substance and resistant to other antibacterial agents. Bacterial isolates (39.4%) were resistant to Amoclane, (No=12) (36.4%) were resistant to gentamicin, and (No=11) (33.3%) were resistant to Ciprofloxacin and Imipenem. \nConclusions: Contamination with pathogens was found on laboratory surfaces and equipment’s (approximately 66% of exchanged items contained pathogens), and dry surfaces may use these organisms as a source of laboratory infection.","PeriodicalId":129993,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pathogen Research","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pathogen Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpr/2023/v12i2222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Laboratory infections can be classified as occupational and nosocomial infections. Laboratory-related infections are generally recognized as a potential risk for clinical laboratory workers. Some bacteria can survive longer on dry surfaces and more on wet surfaces that can infect others and also environments.
Objective: To detect common bacterial pathogens in various medical laboratories in Shendi City.
Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted in Shendi City (Sudan) from August to December 2021. This study included 17 laboratories and 50 samples collected by wet exchange from various locations including laboratory surfaces, microscopes, centrifuges, CBC devices, staining racks, and CBC devices.
Results: This study included Staphylococcus aureus (No=11) (22%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (No=10) (20%), Escherichia coli (No=1) (2%), Klebsiella pneumonia (No=9) (18%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (No=2) (4%). Significant growth of pathogenic bacteria was recoded. Among all the organisms isolated, there was moderate resistance to antibiotics, some bacteria were very resistant, others were resistant, and some organisms were resistant to some antibiotic they were highly sensitive to the substance and resistant to other antibacterial agents. Bacterial isolates (39.4%) were resistant to Amoclane, (No=12) (36.4%) were resistant to gentamicin, and (No=11) (33.3%) were resistant to Ciprofloxacin and Imipenem.
Conclusions: Contamination with pathogens was found on laboratory surfaces and equipment’s (approximately 66% of exchanged items contained pathogens), and dry surfaces may use these organisms as a source of laboratory infection.