Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
EnglishFrançais
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology

Article contents

Comparison of nylon-flocked swab and cellulose sponge methods for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative organism recovery from high-touch surfaces in patient rooms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2018

Clare Rock ,
Michael Anderson ,
Shawna Lewis ,
Verna Scheeler ,
Elaine Nowakowski ,
Yea-Jen Hsu ,
Aaron M. Milstone ,
Karen C. Carroll ,
Lisa L. Maragakis ,
Patricia J. Simner  and
for the CDC Prevention Epicenters Program
Clare Rock
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
Michael Anderson
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Shawna Lewis
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Verna Scheeler
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Elaine Nowakowski
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
Yea-Jen Hsu
Affiliation:
Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
Aaron M. Milstone
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
Karen C. Carroll
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Lisa L. Maragakis
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
Patricia J. Simner
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
for the CDC Prevention Epicenters Program
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Clare.Rock@jhmi.edu
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ideal sampling method and benefit of qualitative versus quantitative culture for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) recovery in hospitalized patient rooms and bathrooms is unknown. Although the use of nylon-flocked swabs improved overall gram-negative organism recovery compared with cellulose sponges, they were similar for CRE recovery. Quantitative culture was inferior and unrevealing beyond the qualitative results.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 39 , Issue 10 , October 2018 , pp. 1257 - 1261
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

1. Vital signs: carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6209a3.htm. Published 2013. Accessed June 25, 2018.Google Scholar
2. Rock, C, Curless, MS, Cantara, M, et al. Resolution of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak in a tertiary cancer center; the role of active surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1117–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Galvin, S, Dolan, A, Cahill, O, Daniels, S, Humphreys, H. Microbial monitoring of the hospital environment: Why and how? J Hosp Infect 2012;82:143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Thom, KA, Howard, T, Sembajwe, S, et al. Comparison of swab and sponge methodologies for identification of Acinetobacter baumannii from the hospital environment. J Clin Microbiol 2012;50:2140–2141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Hodges, LR, Rose, LJ, O’Connell, H, Arduino, MJ. National validation study of a swab protocol for the recovery of Bacillus anthracis spores from surfaces. J Microbiol Method 2010;81:141–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Shams, AM, Rose, LJ, Edwards, JR, et al. Assessment of the overall and multidrug-resistant organism bioburden on environmental surfaces in healthcare facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:1426–1432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Lerner, A, Adler, A, Abu-Hanna, J, Meitus, I, Navon-Venezia, S, Carmeli, Y. Environmental contamination by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae. J Clin Microbiol 2013;51:177–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Hedin, G, Rynbäck, J, Loré, B. New technique to take samples from environmental surfaces using flocked nylon swabs. J Hosp Infect 2010;75:314–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Sbarra, AN, Harris, AD, Johnson, JK, et al. Guidance on frequency and location of environmental sampling for Acinetobacter baumannii . Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:339–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Torkar, KG, Ivić, S. Surveillance of bacterial colonisation on contact surfaces in different medical wards. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 2017;68:116–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 22
Total number of PDF views: 170 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 28th August 2018 - 27th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

2 Cited by
Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-54xgk Total loading time: 0.273 Render date: 2021-01-27T04:42:10.693Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparison of nylon-flocked swab and cellulose sponge methods for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative organism recovery from high-touch surfaces in patient rooms
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparison of nylon-flocked swab and cellulose sponge methods for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative organism recovery from high-touch surfaces in patient rooms
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparison of nylon-flocked swab and cellulose sponge methods for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative organism recovery from high-touch surfaces in patient rooms
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *