The role of medical equipment in the spread of nosocomial infections: a cross-sectional study in four tertiary public he
- PDF / 655,239 Bytes
- 11 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 60 Downloads / 168 Views
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
The role of medical equipment in the spread of nosocomial infections: a crosssectional study in four tertiary public health facilities in Uganda Robert T. Ssekitoleko1* , Solomon Oshabaheebwa1, Ian G. Munabi2, Martha S. Tusabe1, C. Namayega1, Beryl A. Ngabirano1, Brian Matovu1, Julius Mugaga1, William M. Reichert3 and Moses L. Joloba4
Abstract Background: With many medical equipment in hospitals coming in direct contact with healthcare workers, patients, technicians, cleaners and sometimes care givers, it is important to pay close attention to their capacity in harboring potentially harmful pathogens. The goal of this study was to assess the role that medical equipment may potentially play in hospital acquired infections in four public health facilities in Uganda. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from December 2017 to January 2018 in four public health facilities in Uganda. Each piece of equipment from the neonatal department, imaging department or operating theatre were swabbed at three distinct points: a location in contact with the patient, a location in contact with the user, and a remote location unlikely to be contacted by either the patient or the user. The swabs were analyzed for bacterial growth using standard microbiological methods. Seventeen bacterial isolates were randomly selected and tested for susceptibility/resistance to common antibiotics. The data collected analyzed in STATA version 14. Results: A total of 192 locations on 65 equipment were swabbed, with 60.4% of these locations testing positive (116/192). Nearly nine of ten equipment (57/65) tested positive for contamination in at least one location, and two out of three equipment (67.7%) tested positive in two or more locations. Of the 116 contaminated locations 52.6% were positive for Bacillus Species, 14.7% were positive for coagulase negative staphylococcus, 12.9% (15/116) were positive for E. coli, while all other bacterial species had a pooled prevalence of 19.8%. Interestingly, 55% of the remote locations were contaminated compared to 66% of the user contacted locations and 60% of the patient contacted locations. Further, 5/17 samples were resistant to at least three of the classes of antibiotics tested including penicillin, glycylcycline, tetracycline, trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole and urinary anti-infectives. (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Biomedical Engineering Unit, Department of Physiology, School of Biomedical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third pa
Data Loading...
