4.5 Article

Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Colonization in Emergency Department Personnel

期刊

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 529-533

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.03.020

关键词

-

资金

  1. Annals policy
  2. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objective: Nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) can precede infection in patients and contacts. Although general population S aureus/MRSA rates are well described, the prevalence of S aureus and MRSA nasal colonization in emergency department health care workers is not defined. We seek to determine the prevalence of S aureus and MRSA nasal colonization among ED health care workers without evidence of an active site of staphylococcal infection and identify variables associated with colonization. Methods: We prospectively studied a convenience sample of ED health care workers from 5 urban teaching hospitals in Pittsburgh, PA. Each participant completed a questionnaire and nasal culturing. We tested susceptibility with the oxacillin disc diffusion method. We analyzed data with descriptive statistics and univariate regression, with a set at 0.05. Results: Of 255 subjects, 23% were physicians; 62% were nurses, nursing assistants, or patient care technicians; and 15% were clerical staff or social service workers. Of 81 (31.8%) S aureus isolates, 11 (13.6%) were MRSA, an overall prevalence of 4.3%. All positive MRSA samples were from nurses, nursing assistants, or patient care technicians. No other covariate had an association with S aureus or MRSA colonization. Conclusion: In this urban ED health care worker population, the prevalence of S aureus is similar but MRSA nasal colonization is higher than previously reported estimates in the general population of the United States. Physicians and nonpatient contact ED health care workers did not have MRSA colonization. [Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52:529-533.]

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

4.5
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