You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 300 No. 5, August 6, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Bacterial Infections
 •Infectious Diseases, Other
 •Quality of Care
 •Patient Safety/ Medical Error
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Surgery
 •Surgical Physiology
 •Surgical Infections
 •Screening
 •Drug Therapy
 •Drug Therapy, Other
 •Infectious Diseases
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Hospitals

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their cohort study, Dr Harbarth and colleagues1 concluded that "a universal, rapid MRSA admission screening strategy did not reduce nosocomial MRSA infection in a surgical department with endemic MRSA." Although they cited 2 studies reporting failed control in surgical patients, they did not consider the many epidemiologic studies that have reported success with active detection and isolation, including in surgical patients.2-4

We believe there are problems with the design of the study by Harbarth et al. The definition of low adherence to contact precautions (absence of isolation sign, no gowns or gloves at room entry) was inadequate in that noncompliance in wearing or removing barriers could explain their negative results. The admission screening was not actually universal because it did not include patients admitted for less than 24 hours even if they were high risk for MRSA colonization; MRSA-colonized patients among this excluded group could have . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Cassandra D. Salgado, MD, MS
salgado@musc.edu
Medical University of South Carolina
Charleston

Margreet C. Vos, MD, PhD
Erasmus University Medical Center
Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Barry M. Farr, MD, MSc
University of Virginia Health System
Charlottesville



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus at Hospital Admission and Nosocomial Infection in Surgical Patients
Stephan Harbarth, Carolina Fankhauser, Jacques Schrenzel, Jan Christenson, Pascal Gervaz, Catherine Bandiera-Clerc, Gesuele Renzi, Nathalie Vernaz, Hugo Sax, and Didier Pittet
JAMA. 2008;299(10):1149-1157.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTERS

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Hospitals
Rosemary Harris
JAMA. 2008;300(5):503.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Hospitals
William R. Jarvis and Carlene Muto
JAMA. 2008;300(5):504.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Hospitals—Reply
Stephan Harbarth and Didier Pittet
JAMA. 2008;300(5):504-505.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Hospitals—Reply
Daniel J. Diekema and Michael Climo
JAMA. 2008;300(5):505-506.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.