P Aranega-Bou1, R P George2, N Q Verlander3, S Paton4, A Bennett4, G Moore4. 1. Biosafety, Air and Water Microbiology Group, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK. Electronic address: Paz.AranegaBou@phe.gov.uk. 2. Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 3. Statistics Unit, Statistics, Modelling and Economics Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Colindale, UK. 4. Biosafety, Air and Water Microbiology Group, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital sinks, waste traps and drains can harbour carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). AIM: To investigate the dispersal of CRE from sinks in which water delivered from the tap flows directly into the drain and from clinical handwash basins with the drain at the rear. The effect of fast and slow drainage rates was also assessed. METHODS: Waste traps, known to be colonized with CRE, were taken from a hospital and installed within a model laboratory system. New waste traps were also installed and artificially inoculated with CRE. The potential for bacteria to be dispersed from sinks was assessed using cyclone air samplers and/or settle plates. FINDINGS: When the waste traps were artificially contaminated and CRE colonization was confined to the waste trap water, significantly fewer bacteria were dispersed from sinks that drained quickly (P = 0.004) and/or from rear-draining sinks (P = 0.002). When the waste traps were naturally contaminated and CRE colonized the trap, pipework and drain, there was significant interaction between sink drainage and position of the drain (P < 0.001). When drainage was slow, dispersal from rear-draining sinks was almost 30-fold less than from sinks with the drain underneath the tap (P < 0.001). When drainage was fast, rear-draining sinks again released comparatively fewer CRE, although, in this case, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.7). Contaminated splashes travelled up to 1 m from the sink. CONCLUSION: Slow drainage rates and sink designs with the drain directly underneath the tap increase the risk of CRE present in waste traps and drains contaminating the ward environment. Crown
BACKGROUND: Hospital sinks, waste traps and drains can harbour carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). AIM: To investigate the dispersal of CRE from sinks in which water delivered from the tap flows directly into the drain and from clinical handwash basins with the drain at the rear. The effect of fast and slow drainage rates was also assessed. METHODS: Waste traps, known to be colonized with CRE, were taken from a hospital and installed within a model laboratory system. New waste traps were also installed and artificially inoculated with CRE. The potential for bacteria to be dispersed from sinks was assessed using cyclone air samplers and/or settle plates. FINDINGS: When the waste traps were artificially contaminated and CRE colonization was confined to the waste trap water, significantly fewer bacteria were dispersed from sinks that drained quickly (P = 0.004) and/or from rear-draining sinks (P = 0.002). When the waste traps were naturally contaminated and CRE colonized the trap, pipework and drain, there was significant interaction between sink drainage and position of the drain (P < 0.001). When drainage was slow, dispersal from rear-draining sinks was almost 30-fold less than from sinks with the drain underneath the tap (P < 0.001). When drainage was fast, rear-draining sinks again released comparatively fewer CRE, although, in this case, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.7). Contaminated splashes travelled up to 1 m from the sink. CONCLUSION: Slow drainage rates and sink designs with the drain directly underneath the tap increase the risk of CRE present in waste traps and drains contaminating the ward environment. Crown
Authors: I Wolf; P W M Bergervoet; F W Sebens; H L A van den Oever; P H M Savelkoul; W C van der Zwet Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Despina Kotsanas; W R P L I Wijesooriya; Tony M Korman; Elizabeth E Gillespie; Louise Wright; Kylie Snook; Natalie Williams; Jan M Bell; Hua Y Li; Rhonda L Stuart Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Thu Betteridge; John Merlino; Jonathon Natoli; Elaine Y-L Cheong; Thomas Gottlieb; H W Stokes Journal: Microb Drug Resist Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 3.431
Authors: Grace Hy Leung; Timothy J Gray; Elaine Yl Cheong; Peter Haertsch; Thomas Gottlieb Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Bede Constantinides; Kevin K Chau; T Phuong Quan; Gillian Rodger; Monique I Andersson; Katie Jeffery; Sam Lipworth; Hyun S Gweon; Andy Peniket; Graham Pike; Julian Millo; Mary Byukusenge; Matt Holdaway; Cat Gibbons; Amy J Mathers; Derrick W Crook; Timothy E A Peto; A Sarah Walker; Nicole Stoesser Journal: Microb Genom Date: 2020-07
Authors: Cheryl Volling; Narges Ahangari; Jessica J Bartoszko; Brenda L Coleman; Felipe Garcia-Jeldes; Alainna J Jamal; Jennie Johnstone; Christopher Kandel; Philipp Kohler; Helena C Maltezou; Lorraine Maze Dit Mieusement; Nneka McKenzie; Dominik Mertz; Adam Monod; Salman Saeed; Barbara Shea; Rhonda L Stuart; Sera Thomas; Elizabeth Uleryk; Allison McGeer Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Dennis Nurjadi; Martin Scherrer; Uwe Frank; Nico T Mutters; Alexandra Heininger; Isabel Späth; Vanessa M Eichel; Jonas Jabs; Katja Probst; Carsten Müller-Tidow; Juliane Brandt; Klaus Heeg; Sébastien Boutin Journal: Microbiol Spectr Date: 2021-11-24