4.4 Article

Outbreak of Serratia marcescens colonization and infection traced to a Healthcare worker with long-term carriage on the hands

期刊

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1153-1158

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/508818

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

objective. To reveal the source of a nosocomial outbreak of colonization and infection with a strain of Serratia marcescens positive for Guiana extended-spectrum beta-lactamase 1 (GES-1) that occurred among patients in a neurosurgical intensive care unit (ICU) in a Dutch university medical center from May 2002 through March 2003. methods. Samples from the environment and from the hands of healthcare workers ( HCWs) were cultured. A retrospective case-control study was carried out. results. Fifteen neurosurgical ICU patients who had 1 or more cultures that yielded the epidemic strain of S. marcescens from May 2002 through March 2003 were defined as case patients and matched with 30 control patients. Environmental cultures did not reveal a prominent source of S. marcescens. Cultures of specimens from the hands of 100 HCWs revealed colonization of a single HCW with the epidemic strain. Although this HCW instantly went on leave, serial cultures detected prolonged carriage of the epidemic strain on the hands of the HCW for 3 months. The skin of the HCW's hands was psoriatic. The epidemic abruptly ended after the colonized HCW went on leave. Retrospective case- control analysis showed that the patients colonized or infected with S. marcescens received significantly more nursing care from the colonized HCW than did control patients (P < .05). From February 2004 through October 2004, a second cluster of 3 patients was detected with the epidemic strain of S. marcescens. In October 2004, the formerly colonized HCW appeared to have carriage of the epidemic strain on the hands again. conclusions. A single HCW with the epidemic strain of S. marcescens on the hands was considered the source of this outbreak.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据