Survey of MRSA screening policy and laboratory practice in Australia and New Zealand acute care hospitals

Helen Van Gessel MB BS, FRACP
{"title":"Survey of MRSA screening policy and laboratory practice in Australia and New Zealand acute care hospitals","authors":"Helen Van Gessel MB BS, FRACP","doi":"10.1071/HI07056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recently published international consensus documents have attempted to provide guidance for infection control professionals in the often contentious area of active surveillance for methicillin-resistant <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> (MRSA). As well as hospital-based policies in this area, there are also national and state-based guidelines in both Australia and New Zealand.</p><p>In early 2007 a survey of infection control professionals in Australia and New Zealand was conducted to evaluate current local practice in the acute care setting and compare this with published recommendations. Questions were relevant only to a non-outbreak setting.</p><p>A total of 60 respondents from 57 institutions from all states and territories in Australia and New Zealand completed the survey.</p><p>There was wide variation in the reported use of active surveillance for MRSA, although 80% of respondents reported routine screening of at least some patient groups. The commonest patient groups targeted by active surveillance programs were those previously known to be MRSA positive (65%), transfers from other healthcare or residential care facilities (50%), ICU patients (42%) and prior to high-risk surgery (37%). Most laboratories used direct plating for culture of screening specimens and sampled multiple body sites in addition to nasal swabs.</p><p>This survey provides insight into current practice in this area in Australasia and should inform discussion regarding possible review of existing recommendations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92877,"journal":{"name":"Australian infection control : official journal of the Australian Infection Control Association Inc","volume":"12 2","pages":"Pages 56-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1071/HI07056","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian infection control : official journal of the Australian Infection Control Association Inc","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1329936016300190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Recently published international consensus documents have attempted to provide guidance for infection control professionals in the often contentious area of active surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). As well as hospital-based policies in this area, there are also national and state-based guidelines in both Australia and New Zealand.

In early 2007 a survey of infection control professionals in Australia and New Zealand was conducted to evaluate current local practice in the acute care setting and compare this with published recommendations. Questions were relevant only to a non-outbreak setting.

A total of 60 respondents from 57 institutions from all states and territories in Australia and New Zealand completed the survey.

There was wide variation in the reported use of active surveillance for MRSA, although 80% of respondents reported routine screening of at least some patient groups. The commonest patient groups targeted by active surveillance programs were those previously known to be MRSA positive (65%), transfers from other healthcare or residential care facilities (50%), ICU patients (42%) and prior to high-risk surgery (37%). Most laboratories used direct plating for culture of screening specimens and sampled multiple body sites in addition to nasal swabs.

This survey provides insight into current practice in this area in Australasia and should inform discussion regarding possible review of existing recommendations.

澳大利亚和新西兰急症医院MRSA筛查政策和实验室实践调查
最近发表的国际共识文件试图为感染控制专业人员在经常引起争议的耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)主动监测领域提供指导。在这方面,除了以医院为基础的政策外,澳大利亚和新西兰也有以国家和州为基础的指导方针。2007年初,对澳大利亚和新西兰的感染控制专业人员进行了一项调查,以评估当地目前在急性护理环境中的做法,并将其与已发表的建议进行比较。问题仅与非爆发设置相关。来自澳大利亚和新西兰所有州和地区的57所院校的60名受访者完成了这项调查。尽管80%的应答者报告至少对某些患者组进行了常规筛查,但在主动监测MRSA的使用方面存在很大差异。主动监测项目针对的最常见的患者群体是以前已知的MRSA阳性患者(65%),从其他医疗保健或住院护理机构转院的患者(50%),ICU患者(42%)和高危手术前患者(37%)。除鼻拭子外,大多数实验室采用直接电镀培养筛选标本和对多个身体部位进行取样。这项调查提供了对澳大利亚这一领域当前实践的见解,并应告知有关现有建议可能审查的讨论。
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