4.5 Article

Faecal carriage of Clostridioides difficile is low among veterinary healthcare workers in the Netherlands

Journal

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 150, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268822000383

Keywords

Clostridioides difficile; Clostridioides difficile carriage; veterinarians; veterinary healthcare workers

Funding

  1. Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This cross-sectional study assessed the prevalence and risk factors of C. difficile carriage in Dutch veterinary healthcare workers. The results showed a low prevalence of C. difficile carriage in veterinary healthcare workers, with no indications of occupational risk related to working in veterinary care.
Veterinary healthcare workers are in close contact with many different animals and might be at an increased risk of acquiring Clostridioides difficile. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed the prevalence and risk factors of C. difficile carriage in Dutch veterinary healthcare workers. Participants provided a faecal sample and filled out a questionnaire covering potential risk factors for C. difficile carriage. C. difficile culture positive isolates were polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ribotyped and the presence of toxin genes tcdA, tcdB and cdtA/cdtB was determined. Eleven of 482 [2.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-4.0] veterinary healthcare workers were carriers of C. difficile. Three persons carried C. difficile ribotype 078 (0.6%; 95% CI 0.2-1.8). Risk factors for carriage were health/medication and hygiene related, including poor hand hygiene after patient (animal) contact, and did not include occupational contact with certain animal species. In conclusion, the prevalence of C. difficile carriage in veterinary healthcare workers was low and no indications were found that working in veterinary care is a risk for C. difficile carriage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available