Cross-sectional study demonstrates a 30.8% microbial contamination rate on aprons among healthcare workers, indicating that clinical attire can serve as a potential vehicle for pathogen transmission.
Background: Aprons used by healthcare workers may become contaminated during routine clinical work and may act as a possible source of cross-contamination in hospital areas. Aim was to determine microbial contamination on the exposed surface of aprons used by healthcare workers and to identify the micro-organisms isolated. Materials and Methods: This hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted in collaboration with the Departments of Microbiology, Dentistry and Otolaryngology at a tertiary care hospital in Central India. Seventy-eight healthcare workers were included. Sterile swabs were collected from the right and left sleeves and right and left pocket areas on three consecutive days. A total of 936 swabs were processed. Samples were inoculated on blood agar and MacConkey agar and incubated at 37°C for 18–24 hours. Microbial isolates were identified using standard bacteriological methods. Data were analysed using R software and presented as frequency and percentage. Results: Microbial contamination was detected on 24 of 78 aprons. The prevalence was 30.8% with an exact 95% confidence interval of 20.8%–42.2%. Among 936 swabs, 39 (4.2%) showed microbial growth. Coagulase-negative Staphylococci and Micrococcus were the most common isolates and each accounted for 17 (43.6%) positive cultures. Gram-positive bacilli were isolated from five (12.8%) samples. The right pocket area showed the highest contamination with 12 of 234 swabs positive (5.1%). Conclusion: Microbial contamination was present on nearly one-third of aprons used by healthcare workers. Coagulase-negative Staphylococci and Micrococcus were the predominant isolates. Regular laundering and proper hand hygiene may help reduce contamination
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: