ArticleAmerican journal of infection control2019
Assessment of current methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening protocols and outcomes at an academic medical center.
Article in American journal of infection control, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is responsible for many hospital-associated infections. Both MRSA-colonized and MRSA-infected patients must be isolated on contact precautions per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. This study evaluates the current practice for removing MRSA-colonized patients from contact precautions and proposes a new protocol to decrease inconsistencies with screening methodologies.
methodsThis was a retrospective chart review of MRSA screening swabs collected at an academic medical center between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017. Of those patients with MRSA screening swabs, extra-nasal cultures were also evaluated for MRSA infection. Screening swabs were analyzed for appropriateness of order and timing between swabs and active infections. Analysis of variance and the χ² tests were used to determine significance between groups.
resultsThis study included 8,310 patients with a combined total of 11,601 nasal swabs. Significantly more (P = .0159) patients with 2 negative nasal swabs returned with a recurrent MRSA infection or colonization than those who had 3 consecutive negative nasal swabs (27.8% vs 17.0%, respectively). Additionally, 47.8% of patients only had 1 appropriately ordered negative nasal swab, indicating that a nurse-driven protocol may be more effective in obtaining the full series of samples required to remove contact precautions.
conclusionsThe current practice for removing a patient from contact precautions for MRSA is insufficient. The number of negative nasal swabs required should be increased from 2 to 3 and a decolonization protocol should be implemented.
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.