Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To compare two strategies for screening methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers in a high-risk dermatology ward: systematic screening of all admitted patients versus selective screening of patients at risk. DESIGN: The two strategies were applied prospectively during two consecutive periods. In period A (8.5 months), only patients transferred from other wards, or with a history of prior hospitalization, or presenting chronic wounds or disease with denuded skin were considered at high risk of MRSA carriage and sampled. In period B (7.5 months), all admitted patients were systematically screened. End-points were the number of patients having a MRSA-positive screening sample on admission during period B and having none of the risk factors used in period A, the rate of imported MRSA cases, and the rate of acquired cases. SETTING: A 1,032-bed university hospital with a 19-bed inpatient dermatology ward, a referral center for toxic epidermal necrolysis and severe extensive dermatoses. PATIENTS: The study included 729 dermatology inpatients (370 in period A and 359 in period B). RESULTS: During period A, screening samples were obtained on admission for 30% of patients (77% of the patients at risk) and identified 25 MRSA carriers. During period B, 90.5% of admitted patients were screened, and 26 MRSA carriers were detected on admission; all of these patients belonged to at least one predefined category at risk for carriage. Overall rates of imported and acquired cases were similar between the two periods (6.8% vs 7.5%, and 2.9% vs 2.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A screening strategy targeted to patients at risk of harboring MRSA has similar sensitivity and is more cost-effective than a strategy of systematic screening to identify MRSA carriers on admission.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Girou et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: