[Using a 48-hour delay from admission to the first positive culture without any other consideration: an accurate method to differentiate acquired and imported methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus?]

To differentiate imported and acquired strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a 48-hour delay from hospital admission to the first MRSA-positive culture is usually considered. To assess if taking into account this delay without any other consideration is an accurate method, we defined 3 situations for whom we considered the MRSA acquisition status as questionable. The other situations were defined as either acquired MRSA or imported MRSA. We determined the acquisition status of MRSA (acquired, imported, or questionable) isolated during a 20-month period by considering or not considering screening samples performed on admission. The ratio "imported MRSA/acquired MRSA" (I/A) was calculated according to (1) the consideration of MRSA with questionable status as imported or acquired, and (2) the consideration of screening samples or not in the calculation of the ratio. The acquisition status in our hospital was questionable in 3.6% of patients when all samples were considered and in 12,0% when only clinical samples were taken into account (p = 0,01). The ratio I/A was 4-fold higher by considering both clinical and screening cultures and questionable status as imported than by considering only clinical samples and questionable status as acquired. Using a 48-hour delay without any other consideration is probably an accurate method to differentiate acquired and imported MRSA when a selective screening programme at admission in operational. Conversely, this definition seems to be more hazardous in the absence of screening.

Impact of selective screening in the emergency department on meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus control programmes

Identification of the meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) reservoir by active screening followed by the implementation of contact precautions is one of the major components of MRSA control programmes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the results of a programme of selective screening in an emergency department (ED) and the appropriateness of the contact precautions implemented. This was estimated by distinguishing necessary and unnecessary days of contact precautions. This estimation was performed for all days of contact precautions and, more specifically, for days of preventive contact precautions implemented before the availability of screening results. During a three-year period, screening of MRSA carriers was performed on 0.95% (N=605) of patients visiting the emergency ward. Among the 193 (31.9%) MRSA carriers identified, 159 were hospitalized in the short-length-hospitalization area (SLHA) of the ED and/or in other wards. Among the 140 patients admitted to the SLHA, 44 were hospitalized for at least 48 h, with a mean length of hospitalization of 5.9 days. The cumulative duration of hospitalization of carriers identified by screening was 1897 days. In total, 2370 days of contact precautions (including 924 days of preventive precautions) were implemented for patients screened in the ED. Considering the whole hospital, the appropriateness of this entire programme of contact precautions for patients screened in the ED was 80.0% (52.1% for the SLHA), whereas the specific appropriateness of preventive isolation days was 48.6% (43.6% for the SLHA). This study underscores the risk of MRSA cross-transmission in the SLHA, and the usefulness of implementing a control programme of screening carriers in the ED.

Estimation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission by considering colonization pressure at the time of hospital admission

Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) rate using the imported MRSA reservoir identified at the time of hospital admission. Two indicators were used: the number of imported MRSA patient-days/total number of patient-days [representing colonization pressure (CP) at the time of admission] and the incidence of hospital-acquired MRSA isolated from clinical samples expressed as density/100 patient-days for carriers identified at the time of admission [representing the incidence taking CP into account (ICP)]. The variations of these indicators were analysed and compared with two more common indicators: percentage of MRSA acquired in our hospital and the incidence of hospital-acquired MRSA isolated from clinical samples expressed as density/1000 patient-days within three four-month periods during 2002. Common indicators varied similarly, with marked decline during the third period; first-period CP was twice that of other periods (P<10(-6)) and the highest (>two-fold) ICP was seen in the summer (second) period (P<0.001) when the personnel/patient ratio was the lowest. Thus, comparison of different indicators within four-month periods underlines important differences between common and novel indicators. Despite several limitations, ICP should be helpful in the interpretation of MRSA surveillance data, particularly for estimating the extent of MRSA transmission.

Impact of screening for MRSA carriers at hospital admission on risk-adjusted indicators according to the imported MRSA colonization pressure

We evaluated the impact of the different components of a screening programme of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers at hospital admission on the value of two risk-adjusted rates: the proportion of imported MRSA and an indicator of the MRSA colonization pressure (ICP), and the incidence of MRSA acquired and detected in our hospital. Indicators were calculated: (1) with no screening programme; (2) with a programme limited to the intensive care unit (ICU); (3) with a programme extended to patients with risk factors for MRSA carriage hospitalized in non-ICU wards. The programme included an automatic alert. Systematic sampling of patients with risk factors hospitalized in non-ICU settings detected nearly 50% of carriers at admission. The proportion of MRSA imported into our hospital varied from 35.4% without any screening programme to 71.8% when all components of our screening programme were considered (P<10(-4)). The ICP varied from 3.1% (31/985) with the complete programme to 10.4% (31/297) without any screening programme (P<10(-6)). Screening patients with risk factors for MRSA carriage hospitalized in non-ICU wards resulted in a 51% increase of the calculated proportion of imported strains and a 58% decrease of the ICP. The two studied indicators were strongly dependent on the screening strategy for MRSA carriers implemented at admission. The screening strategy for patients admitted to non-ICU wards who have risk factors for MRSA carriage seems to be the determinant for the interpretation of certain risk-adjusted indicators of MRSA cross-transmission. Comparisons of these indicators must consider the setting in which the screening programmes are implemented.