Observational analysis found bacterial contamination in 41% of mobile phones in a veterinary hospital, suggesting a potential infection risk.
Background Mobile phones are commonly used in clinical areas, including theatre, anaesthesia and patient preparation. Contamination rates of 72.6%–100% for mobile phones are reported in human healthcare, including multidrug‐resistant bacteria in more than 30%. Veterinary studies are limited to Staphylococcus only, but similarly high levels of contamination are reported. Methods The personal and work mobile phones of veterinarians and nurses were swabbed for bacterial culture. Gram morphology and colony‐forming units per millilitre (CFU/mL) were recorded for each bacteria grown. Participants completed an anonymous survey detailing habits of phone usage and hygiene. Results Swabs from 39 mobile phones were collected, with 16 of 39 (41%) positive for bacterial contamination. Gram‐positive cocci were most common (38.4%), with 5.13% Gram‐positive coccobacilli, 5.13% Gram‐positive rods and 2.56% Gram‐negative rods. Veterinarians’ mobile phones had a significantly higher incidence of contamination than nurses’ (62.5% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.007). More personal phones were contaminated than work phones (52.6% vs. 30%). Two mobile phones had growth of colonies more than 4000 CFU/mL. Mobile phone usage in clinical areas was reported by 76.2% of 21 participants, 57.1% cleaned their mobile phone less than weekly, 23.8% used non‐antibacterial items to clean with and 23.8% had recently used their mobile phone in the bathroom. Conclusions Bacterial contamination of mobile phones was common, with veterinarians having a significantly higher incidence compared to nurses. Gram‐positive cocci were most common, but Gram‐positive coccobacilli, Gram‐positive rods and Gram‐negative rods were also present. Mobile phone hygiene could be usefully included in infection control guidelines as they are potential fomites for healthcare‐associated infections.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Glenn et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: