Although the mode of transmission of L. pneumophila is as yet unclear, the hot water distribution system has been shown to be the reservoir for Legionella within the hospital environment. In this report we identify a previously unrecognized reservoir for L. pneumophila within the hospital environment, ie, the cold water dispensers of hospital ice machines. The cold water dispensers of 14 ice machines were cultured monthly over a 1-year period. Positive cultures were obtained from 8 of 14 dispensers, yielding from 1 to 300 CFU/plate. We were able to link the positivity of these cold water sites to the incoming cold water supply by recovering L. pneumophila from the cold water storage tank, which is directly supplied by the incoming municipal water line. This was accomplished by a novel enrichment experiment designed to duplicate the conditions (temperature, sediment, stagnation, and continuous seeding) of the hot water system. Our data indicate that significant contamination of cold water outlets with L. pneumophila can occur. Although no epidemiologic link to disease was made, the fact that the primary source of a patient's drinking water is from the ice machines warrants further investigation of these water sources as possible reservoirs.

Personnel at high risk of acquiring hepatitis B in two university-affiliated teaching hospitals were offered immunization against this disease. Of the 1,193 employees, 454 (38%) requested immunization. Individuals who declined or deferred immunization were sent questionnaires requesting the reasons for their decisions. Responses to the questionnaire were received from 487 of 674 personnel (72%). Most respondents (>90%) indicated that they: 1) were aware of being at risk of acquiring hepatitis B, and 2) recognized the potential danger of the disease. A majority of respondents (56%) indicated that they had decided not to be immunized because they wanted to wait until more was known about the vaccine. Concern about specific side effects (eg, Guillain-Barré syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) was cited much less often as a reason for declining immunization. Nearly one-fifth of questionnaire respondents either did not know the date of their last tetanus-diphtheria immunization or had not received a booster within the past decade.

From February to April 1982, rubella was diagnosed in 17 Washington University dental students. The affected students represented 4.8% of all dental students and 21% of susceptible students. Because a high likelihood of rubella transmission was perceived, three adjacent university hospitals undertook an emergency program to ensure immunity to rubella in all personnel. The program reached 84.6% of all target personnel, but only 36% of physicians (p<0.001). We estimated that the program increased the level of rubella immunity from 92.2% to 98.1%, at a total cost of $140,274 of which $29,990 was in excess of ordinary expenditures. Our experience indicates that schools training health professionals face the possibility of rubella outbreaks unless they ensure rubella immunity in all students. The experience also supports the value of ongoing programs to ensure rubella immunity in hospital personnel. Without such programs, hospitals may be forced to undertake emergency programs that are likely to be disruptive and expensive and may have relatively little immediate measurable impact.

We compared the antibiogram statistics generated by including all clinical isolates to those obtained by tabulating no more than one isolate of a particular organism from a given patient. We found that 48.3% of the isolates presented multiple occurrences in individual patients but found no practical differences in the profiles obtained by the two methods. We also tabulated the occurrence of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)-distinct organisms among the sets of multiple isolates of E. coli and of S. aureus and found that only 20.9% of those isolates represented duplicate organisms by MIC profile. This heterogeneity of MIC sensitivity that occurs in multiple isolates from individual patients was not expected but provides an explanation for the lack of difference between the two methods of tabulating antibiotic susceptibility statistics.

Under prospective payment utilizing the diagnostic related groups (DRG) classification, hospital administrators have begun to rethink accepted hospital procedures. It is now necessary to consider every factor that contributes to the cost of care, because those costs will be borne more and more by the hospital rather than the patient. Administrators must determine if an expenditure really improves the quality of care and shortens the length of stay. Unfortunately, in many cases there are no mechanisms or criteria for such an evaluation. The health care industry is in danger of cutting away tissue when the fat is being trimmed away. An effort tojustify and quantify the benefit of an infection control program in a 270-bed acute care general hospital led to eye-opening results, and a decision to expand the program rather than reduce it. The expanded program is expected to recover cost two-fold.

The escalating role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a nosocomial pathogen, the relatively high mortality rate associated with pseudomonal infections, the intrinsic antibiotic resistance of this versatile, ubiquitous organism, and the growing number of reports of multiple antibiotic resistance developing during therapy of Pseudomonas infections prompt a review of currently available penicillins with antipseudomonal activity. Ticarcillin, piperacillin, mezlocillin and azlocillin have upstaged carbenicillin, the first antipseudomonal, β-lactam agent clinically used, with other products “in the wings.”

One activity of most employee health programs is a tuberculosis control program. No two programs will be exactly the same since many of the components of this program are controversial. Each should be tailored to the needs of the individual health care facility. In general, there are two components of a program for tuberculin skin testing of employees:

1. Skin testing prior to exposure.

2. Skin testing after exposure.