Diagnosing pneumonia in rural Thailand: Digital cameras versus film digitizers for chest radiograph teleradiology.

BACKGROUND: Accurate surveillance for pneumonia requires standardized classification of chest radiographs. Digital imaging permits rapid electronic transfer of data to radiologists, and recent improvements in digital camera technology present high quality, yet cheaper, options. METHODS: We evaluated the comparative utility of digital camera versus film digitizer in capturing chest radiographs in a pneumonia surveillance system in rural Thailand using a panel of radiologists; the gold standard was the hard-copy radiograph. We calculated sensitivity and specificity and conducted a receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Of the 192 radiographs from patients with clinical pneumonia, 166 (86%) were classified as pneumonia on the hard copies. Sensitivity and specificity for identifying pneumonia were 89% and 73% for the camera and 90% and 65% for the digitizer. In the ROC analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the area under the curve (camera, 0.86; film digitizer, 0.91, p = 0.29). The digital camera set cost 965 dollars compared to 3000 dollars for the film digitizer. CONCLUSION: Detection of pneumonia was not measurably compromised by using digital cameras compared with film digitizers. The 3-fold lower cost of the digital camera makes this technology an affordable and widely accessible alternative for surveillance systems, vaccine trials, and perhaps clinical use.

Cluster of deaths from group A streptococcus in a long-term care facility--Georgia, 2001.

BACKGROUND: Invasive group A streptococcus (GAS) affects approximately 10,500 persons annually; 1 in 5 patients >/=65 years die. In August 2001, CDC investigated a cluster of GAS deaths in a Georgia long-term care facility (LTCF). METHODS: We screened LTCF residents and staff for GAS carriage and conducted a retrospective cohort study among residents. We defined a case as GAS isolation associated with clinical infection. RESULTS: Eight cases were identified (median age: 79 years); 6 (75%) patients died. Carriage was similar in residents (10%) and staff (9%). All isolates among residents and 63% among staff were type emm 77. Risk factors for GAS disease or carriage among residents were receiving skin treatment (relative risk [RR] = 4.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9-11.0) and having an infected or colonized roommate (RR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.10-5.0). No wound care nurse carried GAS. Interventions included education about standardized infection control guidelines and appropriate hand hygiene; carriers were treated with antibiotics. No subsequent GAS cases were identified in the following year. CONCLUSIONS: Transmission of GAS in this outbreak likely occurred during wound care and ended with improved hand hygiene. This investigation highlights additional research and policy needs for control of severe GAS infections among the high-risk LTCF population.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus on hospital surfaces.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers continued to contract severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), even after barrier precautions were widely implemented. METHODS: We explored the possible contribution of contaminated hospital surfaces to SARS transmission by swabbing surfaces in 2 hospitals and testing the swab samples by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 94 swab samples tested positive for viral RNA. Swab samples of respiratory secretions from each of the 4 patients examined tested positive by RT-PCR, as were 12 of 43 swabs from patient rooms and 10 of 47 swabs from other parts of the hospital, including the computer mouses at 2 nursing stations and the handrail of the public elevator. Specimens from areas with patients with SARS in the most infectious phase of illness (days 5-15 after onset) were more likely to be RNA positive than were swab specimens from elsewhere (24 of 63 samples vs. 2 of 31 samples; P=.001). All cultures showed no growth. CONCLUSIONS: Although the viruses identified may have been noninfectious, health care workers should be aware that SARS coronavirus can contaminate environmental surfaces in the hospital, and fomites should be considered to be a possible mode of transmission of SARS.