Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:39:15.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examination of staphylococcal stethoscope contamination in the emergency department (pilot) study (EXSSCITED pilot study)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2015

Patrick H.P. Tang ,
Andrew Worster ,
Jocelyn A. Srigley  and
Cheryl L. Main
Patrick H.P. Tang
Affiliation:
Divisions of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
Andrew Worster*
Affiliation:
Divisions of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
Jocelyn A. Srigley
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Pathology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
Cheryl L. Main
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Pathology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
*
Hamilton General Hospital, 237 Barton Street East, McMaster Clinic, Room 250A, Hamilton, ON L8L 2X2; worster@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction:

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of Staphylococcus-contaminated stethoscopes belonging to emergency department (ED) staff and to identify the proportion of these that were Staphylococcus aureus or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

Methods:

We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of bacterial cultures from 100 ED staff members' stethoscopes at three EDs. Study participants were asked to complete a questionnaire.

Results:

Fifty-four specimens grew coagulase-negative staphylococci and one grew methicillin-susceptible S. aureus. No MRSA was cultured. Only 8% of participants, all of whom were nurses, reported cleaning their stethoscope before or after each patient assessment. Alcohol-based wipes were most commonly used to clean stethoscopes. A lack of time, being too busy, and forgetfulness were the most frequently reported reasons for not cleaning the stethoscope in the ED.

Conclusions:

This study indicates that although stethoscope contamination rates in these EDs are high, the prevalence of S. aureus or MRSA on stethoscopes is low.

Keywords

contaminationemergency departmentinfection controlStaphylococcus aureusstethoscope
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , July 2011 , pp. 239 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2011

References

REFERENCES

1.de Gialluly, C, Morange, V, de Gialluly, E, et al. Blood pressure cuff as a potential vector of pathogenic microorganisms: a prospective study in a teaching hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:940–3, doi:10.1086/507284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Livornese, L, Dias, S, Samel, C, et al. Hospital-acquired infection with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium transmitted by electronic thermometers. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:112–6.Google Scholar
3.Mayon-White, R, Ducel, G, Kereselidze, T, et al. An international survey of the prevalence of hospital-acquired infection. J Hosp Infect 1988;11 Suppl A:43–8, doi:10.1016/0195-6701(88)90164-8.Google Scholar
4.Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program, Surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) 2006 results. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/nois-sinp/projects/mrsa-eng.php (accessed April 1, 2009).Google Scholar
5.Youngster, I, Berkovitch, M, Heyman, E, et al. The stethoscope as a vector of infectious diseases in the paediatric division. Acta Paediatr 2008;97:1253–5, doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.00906.x.Google Scholar
6.Nunez, S, Moreno, A, Green, K, et al. The stethoscope in the emergency department: a vector of infection? Epidemiol Infect 2000;124:233–7, doi:10.1017/S0950268800003563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Smith, M, Mathewson, J, Ulert, I, et al. Contaminated stethoscopes revisited. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:82–4, doi:10.1001/archinte.156.1.82.Google Scholar
8.Jones, J, Hoerle, D, Riekse, R. Stethoscopes: a potential vector of infection? Ann Emerg Med 1995;26:296–9, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(95)70075-7.Google Scholar
9.Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program, Surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Canadian hospitals—a report update from the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/05vol31/dr3103a-eng.php (accessed November 8, 2009).Google Scholar
10.Moran, GJ, Krishnadasan, A, Gorwitz, RJ, et al. Methicillinresistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2006;355:666–74, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa055356.Google Scholar
11.European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System Management Team, EARSS annual report 2007. Available at: http://www.rivm.nl/earss/Images/EARSS%202007_FINAL_tcm61-55933.pdf (accessed November 8, 2009).Google Scholar
12.Madar, R, Novakova, E, Baska, T. The role of non-critical health-care tools in the transmission of nosocomial infections. Bratisl Lek Listy 2005;106:348–50.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Sengupta, S, Sirkar, A, Shivananda, PG. Stethoscopes and nosocomial infection. Indian J Pediatr 2000;67:197–9, doi:10.1007/BF02723663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Cohen, HA, Amir, J, Matalon, A, et al. Stethoscopes and otoscopes—a potential vector of infection? Fam Pract 1997;14:446–9, doi:10.1093/fampra/14.6.446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Marinella, MA, Pierson, C, Chenoweth, C. The stethoscope: a potential source of nosocomial infection? Arch Intern Med 1997;157:786–90, doi:10.1001/archinte.157.7.786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Hill, C, King, T, Day, R. A strategy to reduce MRSA colonization of stethoscopes. J Hosp Infect 2005;62:122–3, doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2005.03.013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed