MRSA screening in the vascular day-case population
File(s)YA_MRSA.pdf (141.99 KB)
Published version
Author(s)
Ahmad, Y
Khandelwal, Stephen
Nicolson, Anna
Simms, Malcolm
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
The UK Government has prioritised methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening and new operational guidance has instructed that all day-case surgical patients should be screened from April 2009. We sought to identify the number of MRSA-positive patients in the vascular day-case population over a 1-year period and to profile this cohort in terms of risk-factors for MRSA. We also sought to identify whether the new guidance from the Department of Health (DH) had resulted in increased screening rates.
PATIENTS AND METHODS:
Electronic records and laboratory culture results were prospectively consulted to identify whether patients had been screened and if MRSA had been isolated. Consideration was given to whether any patients had a delayed discharge or subsequent admission with an MRSA-related complication.
RESULTS:
Six patients (2.1%) screened MRSA-positive (DH estimate 7%); five were previously known to be MRSA-positive, therefore only 0.36% patients were newly-identified as MRSA-positive. The proportion of patients screened increased from 35% to 72.5% after April 2009, in accordance with DH guidance. Successful decolonisation was proved in two patients (33.3%).
CONCLUSIONS:
There is dispute with several of the key assumptions behind the DH’s impact assessment justifying an expanded MRSA-screening policy. It is not cost-effective to screen all vascular day-case admissions. We recommend selective screening for patients previously identified as MRSA-positive, or considered high risk.
The UK Government has prioritised methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening and new operational guidance has instructed that all day-case surgical patients should be screened from April 2009. We sought to identify the number of MRSA-positive patients in the vascular day-case population over a 1-year period and to profile this cohort in terms of risk-factors for MRSA. We also sought to identify whether the new guidance from the Department of Health (DH) had resulted in increased screening rates.
PATIENTS AND METHODS:
Electronic records and laboratory culture results were prospectively consulted to identify whether patients had been screened and if MRSA had been isolated. Consideration was given to whether any patients had a delayed discharge or subsequent admission with an MRSA-related complication.
RESULTS:
Six patients (2.1%) screened MRSA-positive (DH estimate 7%); five were previously known to be MRSA-positive, therefore only 0.36% patients were newly-identified as MRSA-positive. The proportion of patients screened increased from 35% to 72.5% after April 2009, in accordance with DH guidance. Successful decolonisation was proved in two patients (33.3%).
CONCLUSIONS:
There is dispute with several of the key assumptions behind the DH’s impact assessment justifying an expanded MRSA-screening policy. It is not cost-effective to screen all vascular day-case admissions. We recommend selective screening for patients previously identified as MRSA-positive, or considered high risk.
Date Issued
2011-01-01
Date Acceptance
2010-08-10
Citation
Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2011, 93 (1), pp.44-48
ISSN
0035-8843
Publisher
Royal College of Surgeons of England
Start Page
44
End Page
48
Journal / Book Title
Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
Volume
93
Issue
1
Copyright Statement
© 2010 The Royal College of Surgeons of England
Subjects
1103 Clinical Sciences
Surgery
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2010-09-20