ArticlePloS one2013
The national one week prevalence audit of universal meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) admission screening 2012.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of mupirocin resistance on the transmission and control of healthcare-associated MRSA.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2015Pooled it
- A Preventive "Number Needed to Screen" Would Have Been More Relevant.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Article
- Subinhibitory Concentrations of Mupirocin Stimulate Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Formation by UpregulatingAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2020Article
- Wiping out MRSA: effect of introducing a universal disinfection wipe in a large UK teaching hospital.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2018Article
- Impact of national policies on the microbial aetiology of surgical site infections in acute NHS hospitals in England: analysis of trends between 2000 and 2013 using multi-centre prospective cohort data.Epidemiology and infection · 2017Article
- Point-of-care universal screening for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a cluster-randomized cross-over trial.The Journal of hospital infection · 2017Article
- Communicating the Risk of MRSA: The Role of Clinical Practice, Regulation and Other Policies in Five European Countries.Frontiers in public health · 2017Article
- Making sense of the shadows: priorities for creating a learning healthcare system based on routinely collected data.BMJ quality & safety · 2015Article
- The relationship between hand hygiene and health care-associated infection: it's complicated.Infection and drug resistance · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe English Department of Health introduced universal MRSA screening of admissions to English hospitals in 2010. It commissioned a national audit to review implementation, impact on patient management, admission prevalence and extra yield of MRSA identified compared to "high-risk" specialty or "checklist-activated" screening (CLAS) of patients with MRSA risk factors.
methodsNational audit May 2011. Questionnaires to infection control teams in all English NHS acute trusts, requesting number patients admitted and screened, new or previously known MRSA; MRSA point prevalence; screening and isolation policies; individual risk factors and patient management for all new MRSA patients and random sample of negatives.
results144/167 (86.2%) trusts responded. Individual patient data for 760 new MRSA patients and 951 negatives. 61% of emergency admissions (median 67.3%), 81% (median 59.4%) electives and 47% (median 41.4%) day-cases were screened. MRSA admission prevalence: 1% (median 0.9%) emergencies, 0.6% (median 0.4%) electives, 0.4% (median 0%) day-cases. Approximately 50% all MRSA identified was new. Inpatient MRSA point prevalence: 3.3% (median 2.9%). 104 (77%) trusts pre-emptively isolated patients with previous MRSA, 63 (35%) pre-emptively isolated admissions to "high-risk" specialties; 7 (5%) used PCR routinely. Mean time to MRSA positive result: 2.87 days (±1.33); 37% (219/596) newly identified MRSA patients discharged before result available; 55% remainder (205/376) isolated post-result. In an average trust, CLAS would reduce screening by 50%, identifying 81% of all MRSA. "High risk" specialty screening would reduce screening by 89%, identifying 9% of MRSA.
conclusionsImplementation of universal screening was poor. Admission prevalence (new cases) was low. CLAS reduced screening effort for minor decreases in identification, but implementation may prove difficult. Cost effectiveness of this and other policies, awaits evaluation by transmission dynamic economic modelling, using data from this audit. Until then trusts should seek to improve implementation of current policy and use of isolation facilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.