4.5 Article

Contribution of tap water to patient colonisation with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a medical intensive care unit

Journal

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
Volume 67, Issue 1, Pages 72-78

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2007.06.019

Keywords

Pseudomonas aeruginosa; critical care; epidemiology; tap water samples; cross-infection; nosocomial infection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined tap water as a source of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a medical. intensive care setting. We prospectively screened specimens of patients, tap water and hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) over a six-month period in a 16-bed medical intensive care unit. Molecular relatedness of P. aeruginosa strains was investigated by pulsed-field get electrophoresis. A total of 657 tap water samples were collected from 39 faucets and 127 hands of HCWs were sampled. A aeruginosa was found in 11.4% of 484 tap water samples taken from patients' rooms and in 5.3% of 189 other tap water samples (P < 0.01). A aeruginosa was isolated from 38 patients. Typing of 73 non-replicate isolates (water samples, hands of HCWs and patients) revealed 32 major DNA patterns. Eleven (52.4%) of the 21 faucets were contaminated with a patient strain, found before isolation from tap water in the corresponding room in nine cases, or from the neighbouring room in two cases. Among seven P. aeruginosa strains isolated from HCW hands, the genotype obtained was the same as that from the last patient they had touched in six cases, and in the seventh with the last tap water sample used. More than half of P. aeruginosa carriage in patients was acquired via tap water or cross-transmission. Carriage of P. aeruginosa by patients was both the source and the consequence of tap water colonisation. These results emphasise the need for studies on how to control tap water contamination. (c) 2007 The Hospital Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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