Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:51:08.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Prevalence Among Healthcare Workers in Contact Tracings in a Dutch Hospital

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2020

Veronica Weterings
Affiliation:
Amphia Hospital
Heidi Kievits
Affiliation:
Amphia Hospital
Miranda van Rijen
Affiliation:
Amphia Hospital
Jan Kluytmans
Affiliation:
Amphia Hospital
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Background: In The Netherlands, the national guidelines on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevention and control advocate screening of healthcare workers (HCWs) after unprotected exposure to MRSA carriers. Although this strategy is largely successful, contact tracing of staff is a time-consuming and costly component. We evaluated our contact tracing policy for HCWs over the years 2010–2018. Methods: A retrospective, observational study was performed in a Dutch teaching hospital. All HCWs who had unprotected contact with an MRSA carrier were included in contact tracing. When there had been a long period of unprotected admission prior to an MRSA finding, or when the index case was an HCW, the entire (nursing) team was tested. All samples of HCWs who were tested for MRSA carriage as part of contact tracing from 2010 until 2018 were included. A pooled nose, throat, and perineum swab was collected using the eSwab medium (Copan) and inoculated on chromID MRSA agar plates (bioMérieux) after enrichment in a broth. Molecular typing was performed using multiple-locus variable number of tandem repeat analysis (MLVA). Results: In total, we included 8,849 samples (range, 677–1,448 samples per year) from 287 contact tracings (range, 26–55 contact tracings per year). Overall, 32 HCWs were colonized with MRSA (0.36%; 95% CI, 0.26%–0.51%). None of them developed a clinical infection. Moreover, 8 HCWs (0.10%; 95% CI, 0.05%–0.19%) were colonized with the same MLVA type as the index case and were detected in 6 of 287 contact tracings (2%). In 4 of 8 of these cases, a positive HCW was the index for undertaking contact tracing. In 3 of 8 cases, it was clear that the HCW who was identified in the contact tracing was the source of the outbreak and was the cause of invasive MRSA infections in patients. Notably, a different MLVA type as the index case was found in 24 HCWs (0.27%; 95% CI, 0.18%–0.40%) of whom 7 of 24 HCWs (29.2%) were intermittent carriers. Conclusions: This study revealed a sustained low MRSA prevalence among samples in contact tracing of HCWs over 9 years. Furthermore, it shows that when MRSA contact tracing is performed according to the national guideline, only 1 of 1,000 samples results in a secondary case. This is similar to the population carriage rate of MRSA in The Netherlands. More frequently, an unrelated strain is found. These findings raise questions regarding the efficacy of the current strategy to perform contact tracing after unprotected exposure.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.