Y Ahmad1, S Khandelwal, A M Nicolson, M H Simms. 1. Department of Vascular Surgery, Selly Oak Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK. yousif.ahmad@uhb.nhs.uk
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The UK Government has prioritised methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening and new operational guidance has instructed that all day-case surgical patients should be screened from April 2009. We sought to identify the number of MRSA-positive patients in the vascular day-case population over a 1-year period and to profile this cohort in terms of risk-factors for MRSA. We also sought to identify whether the new guidance from the Department of Health (DH) had resulted in increased screening rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Electronic records and laboratory culture results were prospectively consulted to identify whether patients had been screened and if MRSA had been isolated. Consideration was given to whether any patients had a delayed discharge or subsequent admission with an MRSA-related complication. RESULTS: Six patients (2.1%) screened MRSA-positive (DH estimate 7%); five were previously known to be MRSA-positive, therefore only 0.36% patients were newly-identified as MRSA-positive. The proportion of patients screened increased from 35% to 72.5% after April 2009, in accordance with DH guidance. Successful decolonisation was proved in two patients (33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: There is dispute with several of the key assumptions behind the DH's impact assessment justifying an expanded MRSA-screening policy. It is not cost-effective to screen all vascular day-case admissions. We recommend selective screening for patients previously identified as MRSA-positive, or considered high risk.
INTRODUCTION: The UK Government has prioritised methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening and new operational guidance has instructed that all day-case surgical patients should be screened from April 2009. We sought to identify the number of MRSA-positive patients in the vascular day-case population over a 1-year period and to profile this cohort in terms of risk-factors for MRSA. We also sought to identify whether the new guidance from the Department of Health (DH) had resulted in increased screening rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Electronic records and laboratory culture results were prospectively consulted to identify whether patients had been screened and if MRSA had been isolated. Consideration was given to whether any patients had a delayed discharge or subsequent admission with an MRSA-related complication. RESULTS: Six patients (2.1%) screened MRSA-positive (DH estimate 7%); five were previously known to be MRSA-positive, therefore only 0.36% patients were newly-identified as MRSA-positive. The proportion of patients screened increased from 35% to 72.5% after April 2009, in accordance with DH guidance. Successful decolonisation was proved in two patients (33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: There is dispute with several of the key assumptions behind the DH's impact assessment justifying an expanded MRSA-screening policy. It is not cost-effective to screen all vascular day-case admissions. We recommend selective screening for patients previously identified as MRSA-positive, or considered high risk.
Authors: M Vriens; H Blok; A Fluit; A Troelstra; C Van Der Werken; J Verhoef Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2002-11-08 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: S Harbarth; S Dharan; N Liassine; P Herrault; R Auckenthaler; D Pittet Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jayshree Dave; Paul J Jenkins; Alison Hardie; Melvyn Smith; Paul Gaston; Alan P Gibb; Kate Templeton; Alastair H Simpson Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2013-09-08 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Ritu Kapoor; Christopher J Barnett; Rebecca M Gutmann; Vedat O Yildiz; Nicholas C Joseph; Nicoleta Stoicea; Stephan Reyes; Barbara M Rogers Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2014-11-03