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.
苏丹申地镇各医学实验室医院和实验室常见病原菌检测及药敏模式
背景:实验室感染可分为职业感染和医院感染。实验室相关感染通常被认为是临床实验室工作人员的潜在风险。有些细菌在干燥的表面上存活的时间更长,而在潮湿的表面上存活的时间更长,这样就可以感染其他人和环境。目的:对沈迪市各医学实验室常见病原菌进行检测。材料与方法:于2021年8月至12月在苏丹申迪市进行了一项横断面分析研究。本研究包括17个实验室和50个样品,通过湿交换从实验室表面、显微镜、离心机、全血细胞计数仪、染色架和全血细胞计数仪等不同地点收集。结果:本研究包括金黄色葡萄球菌(11株)(22%)、表皮葡萄球菌(10株)(20%)、大肠杆菌(1株)(2%)、肺炎克雷伯菌(9株)(18%)、铜绿假单胞菌(2株)(4%)。病原菌的显著生长被重新记录。在所有分离的细菌中,对抗生素有中等耐药性,有些细菌非常耐药,有些细菌耐药,有些细菌对某些抗生素耐药,它们对该物质高度敏感,对其他抗菌剂耐药。对阿莫克兰耐药(39.4%),对庆大霉素耐药(No=12)(36.4%),对环丙沙星和亚胺培南耐药(No=11)(33.3%)。结论:在实验室表面和设备上发现了病原体污染(约66%的交换物品含有病原体),干燥的表面可能将这些微生物作为实验室感染源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信