RESUMO
Hospital-acquired infections are commonly resistant to antibiotics and cause substantial morbidity and mortality in susceptible populations. Although there is no direct contact between the anaesthetic machine's controls and the patient, there is considerable potential for colonising organisms to be carried between the anaesthetic machine and the patient on the anaesthetist's hands. We performed two cross-sectional studies of bacterial contamination on anaesthetic machines before and after a simple intervention. Without warning, during theatre sessions, bacterial cultures were obtained from anaesthetic equipment. A new departmental policy of cleaning anaesthetic equipment with detergent wipes between cases was then introduced. Six weeks later, again without warning, a further set of cultures was taken. There was significant reduction in the proportion of cultures containing pathogenic bacteria (from 14/78 cultures (18%; 95% CI 9.4-26.5%) before the intervention to 5/77 cultures (6%; 95% CI 1.0-12%) after the intervention (p = 0.03)). The intervention was quick, easy and enthusiastically taken up by the majority of staff. We conclude that cleaning of anaesthetic equipment between cases should become routine practice.
Assuntos
Anestesia por Inalação/instrumentação , Bactérias/isolamento & purificação , Infecção Hospitalar/transmissão , Contaminação de Equipamentos , Infecção Hospitalar/prevenção & controle , Estudos Transversais , Detergentes , Desinfecção/métodos , Contaminação de Equipamentos/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Controle de Infecções/métodosAssuntos
Bacteriemia/etiologia , Embalagem de Medicamentos/instrumentação , Contaminação de Equipamentos , Heparina , Lítio , Infecções por Pseudomonas/etiologia , Pseudomonas fluorescens/isolamento & purificação , Criança , Reações Falso-Positivas , Bacilos e Cocos Aeróbios Gram-Negativos , HumanosRESUMO
AIM: To compare throat swabs with sputum specimens for Chlamydia pneumoniae antigen detection. METHODS: During a one year period, sputum and throat swabs from 50 patients over 15 years of age with acute or persisting lower respiratory tract infection were examined for C pneumoniae antigen by direct immunofluorescence. RESULTS: C pneumoniae antigen was detected in 18/50 patients (36.0%) from sputum, throat swab, or both. Paired sputum and throat swabs were received from 35/50 patients (70.0%). C pneumoniae antigen was detected in either or both specimens from 14/35 patients (40.0%). Of the 14 positive patients, both specimens were positive in nine (64.3%), throat swab only in four (28.6%), and sputum only in one (7.1%). Of the remaining 15 patients from whom only a single specimen was sent, a further three of eight throat swabs and one of seven sputum specimens were positive. There was no statistically significant difference between the results obtained from the two types of specimen. CONCLUSIONS: Throat swabs may be as good as sputum for the detection of C pneumoniae antigen.
