Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:38:14.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Blinded Comparison of Three Laboratory Protocols for the Identification of Patients Colonized With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Michael Gardam ,
James Brunton ,
Barbara Willey ,
Allison McGeer ,
Donald Low  and
John Conly
Michael Gardam*
Affiliation:
Infection Prevention and Control Unit, Department of Microbiology, Toronto Medical Laboratories University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
James Brunton
Affiliation:
Infection Prevention and Control Unit, Department of Microbiology, Toronto Medical Laboratories University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Barbara Willey
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Allison McGeer
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Donald Low
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
John Conly
Affiliation:
Infection Prevention and Control Unit, Department of Microbiology, Toronto Medical Laboratories University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
*
200 Elizabeth St, NUW 13-132, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To compare three laboratory screening protocols for the detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from surveillance specimens (mannitol-salt agar containing 2 μg/mL of oxacillin [MSA-2], mannitol-salt agar containing 4 μg/mL of oxacillin [MSA-4], and a broth-containing protocol as recommended by the American Society for Microbiology [M-ASM]).

Design:

Blinded comparative laboratory study and cost analysis.

Setting:

University-affiliated microbiology laboratory.

Methods:

Outcome measurements included rate of detection of MRSA-positive specimens and patients, turnaround time, and media and technologist costs. All MRSA culture swabs obtained from any patient site from November 1998 to April 1999 were included.

Results:

The M-ASM protocol detected between 19.1% and 32.0% more MRSA-positive specimens and between 13.3% and 23.3% more MRSA-positive patients per surveillance event than the MSA-4 and MSA-2 protocols, respectively. There was no difference in positive-culture reporting time between the M-ASM and MSA-4 protocols. The broth-containing protocol was 2- to 2.5-fold more expensive than the simpler protocols, taking into account media and laboratory personnel costs.

Conclusions:

It remains to be determined whether it is cost beneficial for a hospital to adopt the M-ASM, as the potential cost of MRSA transmission from unidentified MRSA-colonized patients is unknown. A broth-containing protocol should be considered the gold standard in future studies examining newer MRSA screening protocols.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , March 2001 , pp. 152 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hartstein, AI, Mulligan, ME. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . In: Mayhall, CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996:290–306.Google Scholar
2. Sautter, RL, Brown, WJ, Mattman, LH. The use of a selective staphylococcal broth vs direct plating for the recovery of Staphylococcus aureus . Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988;9:204–205.Google Scholar
3. Cookson, BD, Webster, M, Phillips, I. Control of epidemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Lancet 1987;1:696.Google Scholar
4. Van Ogtrop, ML. Effect of broth enrichment cultures on ability to detect carriage of Staphylococcus aureus . Antimicrobial Agents Chemother 1995;39:2169.Google Scholar
5. Davies, S, Zadik, PM. Comparison of methods for the isolation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . J Clin Pathol 1997;50:257–258.Google Scholar
6. Gorss, EB. Prospective, focused surveillance for oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . In: Isenberg, HD, ed. Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press; 1992:11.15.1–11.15.2.Google Scholar
7. Murakami, K, Minamide, W, Wada, K, Nakamura, E, Teraoka, H, Watanabe, S. Identification of methicillin-resistant strains of staphylococci by polymerase chain reaction. J Clin Microbiol 1991;29:2240–2244.Google Scholar
8. Jernigan, JA, Climence, MA, Stott, GA, Titus, MG, Alexander, CH, Palumbo, CM, et al. Control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a university hospital: one decade later. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:686–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Jernigan, JA, Titus, MG, Groschel, DHM, Getchell-White, SI, Farr, BM. Effectiveness of contact isolation during a hospital outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Am J Epidemiol 1996;143:496–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Cookson, BD. Selective staphylococcal broth. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:2380–2381.Google Scholar
11. Sanford, MD, Widmer, AF, Bale, MJ, Jones, RN, Wenzel, RP. Efficient detection and long-term persistence of the carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Clin Infect Dis 1994;19:1123–1128.Google Scholar
12. Thompson, RL, Cabezudo, I, Wenzel, RP. Epidemiology of nosocomial infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Ann Intern Med 1982;92:309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Papia, G, Louie, M, Tralla, A, Johnson, C, Collins, V, Simor, AE. Screening high-risk patients for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on admission to the hospital: is it cost effective? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:473–477.Google Scholar
14. Kennedy, C, Weinwurm, D, Rappoccio, M, Burt, J, Garcia, M, Dedier, H, et al. Reduction of nosocomial MRSA occurrence at the Toronto Hospital: effects of intervention or natural history? Presented at the Community and Hospital Infection Control Association Conference; May 31-June 2, 1999; Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.Google Scholar
15. Kim, T, Simor, AE, Oh, PI. The economic impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Canadian hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:99–104.Google Scholar
16. Teare, EL, Barrett, SP. Stop the ritual of tracing colonised people. BMJ 1997;314:665–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed