Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

MRSA carriage among healthcare workers in non-outbreak settings in Europe and the United States: a systematic review

  • Madeleine Dulon1Email author,
  • Claudia Peters2,
  • Anja Schablon2 and
  • Albert Nienhaus1, 2
BMC Infectious Diseases201414:363

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-363

Received: 31 January 2014

Accepted: 25 June 2014

Published: 3 July 2014

Abstarct

Background

A recent review estimated prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in healthcare workers (HCWs) to be 4.6%. However, MRSA carriage in HCWs in non-outbreak settings is thought to be higher than in an outbreak situation, due to increased hygiene awareness in outbreaks, but valid data are missing. The goals of this paper are to summarise the prevalence of MRSA carriage amongst HCWs in non-outbreak situations and to identify occupational groups in healthcare services associated with a higher risk of MRSA colonisation.

Methods

A systematic search for literature was conducted in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using seven criteria. Pooled prevalence rates were calculated. Pooled effect estimates were identified in a meta-analysis.

Results

31 studies were included in this review. The pooled MRSA colonisation rate was 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34%-2.50%). The rate increased to 4.4% (95% CI, 3.98%-4.88%) when one study from the Netherlands was excluded. The pooled MRSA rate was highest in nursing staff (6.9%). Nursing staff had an odds ratio of 1.72 (95% CI, 1.07-2.77) when compared with medical staff and an odds ratio of 2.58 (95%, 1.83-3.66) when compared with other healthcare staff. Seven studies were assessed as being of high quality. The pooled MRSA prevalence in high quality studies was 1.1% or 5.4% if the one large study from the Netherlands is not considered. The pooled prevalence in studies of moderate quality was 4.0%.

Conclusions

MRSA prevalence among HCWs in non-outbreak settings was no higher than carriage rates estimated for outbreaks. Our estimate is in the lower half of the range of the published MRSA rates in the endemic setting. Our findings demonstrate that nursing staff have an increased risk for MRSA colonisation. In order to confirm this finding, more studies are needed, including healthcare professionals with varying degrees of exposure to MRSA. In order to reduce misclassification bias, standardisation of HCWs screening is warranted.

Keywords

MRSA Colonisation Healthcare worker

Background

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most commonly identified antimicrobial-resistant pathogen in hospitals in many parts of the world [1]. In Europe, the proportion of methicillin resistance in strains of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) isolates in infected patients varied in 2011 from less than 0.5% to more than 50%, with a pooled mean rate of around 17% [1]. In the United States, the proportion of methicillin resistance in S. aureus strains approached almost 60% in 2003, with an average rate of resistance over the period 1998–2002 of around 50% [2]. In several European countries, a reduction in the proportion of bloodstream infections caused by MRSA has been observed, which may reflect the success of infection control measures in the clinical setting [3]. Nevertheless, the burden of healthcare-associated MRSA colonisation seems to extend beyond the clinical setting to long-term care facilities and outpatient care [4].

The anterior nares are the main reservoir of MRSA, although other body sites are frequently colonised, such as the hands, skin, axillae, and intestinal tract [5, 6]. Colonised individuals are generally asymptomatic and three types of MRSA carrier status can be distinguished: non-carriers, persistent carriers, who are chronically colonised with the same strain, and intermittent carriers, who are colonised with varying strains for short time periods [6]. A special form of short-term carriage is transient carriage, which is identified during or after a work shift and in most cases lost before the next shift [7]. Nasal carriage of S. aureus has been associated with an increased risk of infection for the colonised individual [8], and a similar increased risk is expected for intestinal carriage [5]. However, it is unclear whether the risk of infection is higher for the colonised individual when carriage is persistent [9, 10]. Approximately 5% of colonised HCWs develop clinical infections [6] and symptomatic MRSA infections among HCWs have been described in several case reports [11, 12].

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are likely to be important in the transmission of MRSA, but more frequently act as vectors, rather than being the main sources of MRSA transmission [6, 13, 14]. The most important mode of MRSA transmission is through contamination of the hand [15]. An alternative mechanism of transmission is airborne dispersal of staphylococci in association with an upper respiratory tract infection [16]. Colonised HCW are most often transiently colonised, but they may become persistent carriers if they have chronic dermatitis or sinusitis, and this may lead to prolonged MRSA transmission [17, 18].

Whilst routine screening of all potential inpatients at risk is receiving increasing political support, the procedures of screening and decolonisation for colonised HCWs remain controversial [6, 13]. Although in regions with low MRSA prevalence, such as the Netherlands, screening after each contact with MRSA-positive patients is recommended [19], the guidelines of several European countries and North American health associations are more reluctant and only advocate staff screening in selected situations, such as epidemiological outbreaks [17, 2022]. Decolonisation of nasal colonised HCWs with mupirocin is recommended by most guidelines, but critical questions have arisen about the systematic use of this antibacterial agent [23]. Other issues related to the management of colonised HCW have been raised in the literature, including the questions of the optimum timing of HCW screening and whether and for how long colonised HCWs should be excluded from work [6, 13]. Work restrictions for HCWs colonised with MRSA differ geographically, ranging from being allowed to work without restrictions other than compulsory hand hygiene, to being removed from clinical duties or being forced to take leave of absence [6].

In German speaking countries, active post-exposure screening of HCWs is not routine [21, 24, 25]. In the case of persistent carriers, further employment of the employee is not advised where there is patient contact. The German Code of Social Law (SGB VII, Art 9, §3) does allow the recognition of an infection with MRSA as an occupational disease, however colonisation with MRSA without signs of infection cannot be recognised and compensated for as an occupational disease. HCWs with MRSA colonisation might therefore suffer from job restrictions without being covered by the social accident insurance.

The prevalence of MRSA colonisation among HCWs was assessed in two reviews to be around 5%, on the basis of 127 papers published between 1980 and March 2006 [6] and a further 18 papers published between April 2006 and March 2010 [13]. Both reviews included worldwide MRSA data from endemic situations and outbreaks. Aside from outbreaks, it is assumed that MRSA rates will be higher when HCWs comply poorly with hand hygiene and contact precautions, as they are not fully aware of the threat of the bacteria load [6]. However, only a few data are available on the prevalence of MRSA carriers among HCWs in non-outbreak settings. The goals of the present review were to document the prevalence of MRSA carriage amongst HCWs in non-outbreak settings in European countries and the United States and to identify occupational groups and specialties in the healthcare services associated with a higher risk of MRSA exposure.

Methods

Search strategy and screening

The systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement [26]. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles published between January 2000 and December 2013. Search terms and Medical subject Headings (MeSH) for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and health personnel were combined with two searches relating to prevalence and screening as follows:

  • Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus OR MRSA

AND

  • Health personnel OR healthcare worker$ OR healthcare professional$ OR staff OR employees

AND

  • Prevalence OR cross-sectional study OR carrier state OR carriage

AND

  • Screening OR screen OR surveillance

The results of the search were limited to studies in human and to articles written in English, German, Spanish or Italian. The titles and abstracts identified by the search were screened by MD and at least by one of the other authors and relevant papers were selected for the review. Full-text evaluation was conducted by MD and in case of uncertainty, discussion took place with the other authors. Articles were included if they reported prevalence rates of MRSA in personnel working in healthcare settings in European countries or the United States. We restricted our search to studies carried out in European countries and the United States, as the situation in healthcare settings in these countries can be compared directly. Prospective (cohort) studies were included if baseline data were presented for the whole study population. Articles were excluded if they were related to outbreaks, to patients or residents only, were not performed in Europe or in the United States, or were designed as an incidence study. Bibliographies of included studies were also reviewed to retrieve any further references. Results were not limited to peer-reviewed publications, e.g., Letters to the Editor and abstracts of conference publications were also included.

A data extraction form was developed to collect information on the following points: 1) study design (country, study period, sample size, study population, and healthcare setting); 2) swabbing methods (anatomic sampling sites and screening strategy); 3) results (number and percentage of subjects colonised with MRSA and percentage of MRSA carriage related to occupational groups or specialty); and 4) study quality.

As we conducted a review of existing literature no approval of an ethics committee was required.

Assessment of study quality

The quality of included papers was independently assessed by two authors (CP and AS), using a tool composed of seven criteria taken from a checklist aimed at evaluating the quality of prevalence surveys [27] and the STROBE statement [28]. The criteria were expressed as questions (Table 1). The answers were graded as Yes (with a score of one point) if the question was satisfactorily answered, otherwise with a score of zero points if information was missing (not documented) or unclear. Study quality was assessed as high (>4 points) or moderate (≤4 points).
Table 1

Checklist for the quality assessment of MRSA prevalence surveys in healthcare workers

Number

Criteria*

Content

1

Specification of the target population

Are study subjects and the setting described?

2

Adequate sample size**

Is the sample size adequate?

3

Adequate response rate

Is the response rate adequate - at least 60%?

4

Information on non-responders

Are the non-responders described?

5

Valid and repeatable disease definition

Are standard measures (microbiological and molecular typing methods) used for detection of MRSA?

6

Bias

Are efforts described to address potential sources of bias and/or have potential sources of bias been discussed?

7

Interpretation of the results

Were confidence intervals or standard errors presented for the estimates of prevalence?

*Criteria adopted from [27, 28].

**Calculation of adequate sample size was based on the following assumptions: prevalence rate of MRSA in healthcare workers = 5%, error rate ±2.5 at the 95% confidence level, resulting in a sample size of 284; we considered a final sample size (after subtracting the non-responders) to be of 250.

Statistical analysis

Studies were grouped according to the quality level (high and moderate), study area (United States and Europe), and occupational group (nursing staff, medical staff and other healthcare staff). The pooled prevalence of MRSA colonisation was calculated by dividing the number of MRSA-colonised subjects by the total number of subjects for whom culture results were reported. Carriage rates were described by 95% confidence intervals of proportions. Studies which reported stratified numerator and denominator data for occupational groups were included in the meta-analysis. The proportion of subjects in two occupational groups (nursing and medical staff) was compared with the group of other healthcare staff and with each other. These data were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) as effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For the purpose of meta-analysis, a combined effect estimate was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method for dichotomous outcomes. Odds ratios were stratified for study area and study quality. χ2 analysis was used to compare proportions and to determine heterogeneity among studies. As the χ2 test has a low sensitivity for detecting heterogeneity in the situation of a meta-analysis when studies have a small sample size, P value of < .1 was considered significant for the presence of statistical heterogeneity [29]. In case of homogeneity, we used a variance approach with a fixed effect model and in case of heterogeneity we used the random effect model [29]. Publication bias due to study size was assessed by a funnel plot [30]. The analysis was carried out using Review Manager (RevMan 5.1).

Results

Studies identified and assessment of study quality

The database search identified 195 unique papers (Figure 1). A total of 166 papers were excluded, because data of MRSA rates were collected outside Europe or the United States (n = 32), were collected during outbreaks (n = 19), belonged to patients or residents only (n = 25), or because the topics of these papers were reviews or guidelines or focused on other subjects (incidence studies, cost calculations, MRSA associated with livestock or communities) (n = 90). Twenty nine papers were eligible for full-text evaluation, of which 21 were included. An additional ten papers were identified via reference screening. Thus, a total of 31 papers were included in the review (Table 2).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2334-14-363/MediaObjects/12879_2014_Article_3664_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Study-selection process for this review. PRISMA flowchart.

Table 2

Studies reporting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation in healthcare workers (HCWs) in non-outbreak situations in Europe and The United States

Reference

Study year (duration of the screening period)

Country

Study population

Swabbing methods

Results

Quality scoringb

Sample size

Profession, Healthcare settinga

Anatomic sampling sites

Screening strategy

No. (%) of subjects with MRSA

Related to occupation or specialty - % of subjects with MRSA

Quality level: high

Baldwin 2009 [31]

2005-2006 (9 months)

Northern Ireland

563

Nurses, care and domestic assistants, kitchen and clerical staff; nursing home (n = 45)

Nose

On one day in each nursing home

43 (7.5)

Nurses 8.7

1:Y; 2:Y;

Care assistants 10.2

3:Y; 4:N;

Others 3.5

5:Y; 6:Y;

7:Y

Elie-Turenne 2010 [32]

2008 (4 weeks)

US, New York

256

Nurses/therapists, physicians, clerical staff, paramedics; hospital (emergency department (ED), ICU, pre-hospital emergency medical service (EMS)

Nose

Swabs taken between 5:00–11:00 to gain participation of staff who worked during night, day & mid-day shifts

17 (6.6)

Nurses/ther. 10.5

1:Y; 2:Y;

Physicians 3.8

3:N; 4:N;

Clerical 3.6

5:Y; 6:Y;

Paramedics 1.9

7:Y

ED 9.6

 

ICU 5.1

EMS 1.9

Eveillard 2004 [33]

1998-1999 (7 months)

France

965

Nursing, medical, laboratory, radiology, engineering and administrative staff; hospital (ICU, medical ward, LTCF-E)

Nose

ND

60 (6.2)

Nursing 9.6

1:Y; 2:Y;

Medical 6.3

3:Y; 4:N;

Lab./radio. 2.7

5:Y; 6:Y;

Engineering 2.0

7:Y

Admin. 0.8

 

LTCF-E 36.0

 

Medical ward 12.5

ICU 3.0

Jager 2010 [34]

2008 (4 months)

The Netherlands

266

Employees; medical microbiology laboratory (n = 5)

Nose, throat

Self-swabbing

1 (0.4)

 

1:Y; 2:Y;

3:Y; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:Y;

7:N

Johnston 2007 [35]

2004-2005 (6 months)

US, Baltimore

200

Nurses and physicians; hospital (medical ICU and inpatient HIV infection unit)

Nose

Once a month

4 (2.0)c

 

1:Y; 2:N;

8 (4.0)d

3:Y; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:Y;

7:Y

Suffoletto 2008 [36]

2006 (3 months)

US, Pittsburgh

255

Nurses, nursing assistants, radiology and respiratory technicians, physicians, clerical staff; hospital (n = 5 (emergency departments)

Nose

Swabs taken at the beginning of the shift

11 (4.3)

Nursing/medical

1:Y; 2:Y;

technicians 6.9

3:N; 4:N;

Physicians 0.0

5:Y; 6:Y;

Clerical 0.0

7:Y

Vos 2009 [37]

2000-2004 (4 years)c

The Netherlands

13.195

HCWs involved in the care of MRSA positive patients; hospital (medical centre)

Nose, throat, skin lesions

Routine personnel screening

31 (0.2)d

 

1:Y; 2:Y;

3:Y; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:Y;

7:N

Quality level: moderate

       

Amorim 2009 [38]

2003-2005 (26 months)

Portugal

126

HCWs (nurses, nurse aids, physician, administrative and technical staff); hospital (vascular surgery, endocrinology ward)

Nose

3 screening sessions per year

6 (4.8)c

Nurses 8.9

1:Y; 2:N;

Nurse aids 4.4

3:Y; 4:N;

Physicians 2.5

5:Y; 6:Y;

Admin/techn 0.0

7:N

Becker 2013 [39]

ND

Germany

13

Nursing staff; LTCF-E (n = 2)

Nose

ND

1 (7.7)

 

1:Y; 2:N;

3:N; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:N;

7:N

Berthelot 2004 [40]

2000 (1 month)

France

333

Fellows, nursing and medical students; control group of HCWs; hospital

Nose

ND

14 (2.5)

Students 2.4

1:Y; 2:Y;

Control group 2.6

3:N; 4:N;

5:N; 6:N;

7:Y

Bisaga 2008 [41]

2006 (5 months)

US, Chicago

105

Nurses, physicians, technicians; hospital (emergency department)

Nose

Swabs taken during the shift at times convenient to the subjects

16 (15.0)

Nurses 17.0

1:Y; 2:N;

Physicians 8.0

3:N; 4:N;

Technicians 18.0

5:Y; 6:Y;

7:Y

Boisseau 2012 [42]

2010 (1 day)

France

152

Physicians, paramedical HCWs; attendees of a medical conference

Nose

ND

4 (2.4)

 

1:Y; 2:N;

3:N; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:Y;

7:N

Brady 2009 [43]

2008 (1 day)

United Kingdom

260

Surgical and non-surgical physicians (phys.); attendees of a medical conference (n = 2)

Nose

ND

6 (2.0)

Surgical phys. 4.8

1:Y; 2:Y;

Non-surgical phys. 0.6

3:N; 4:N;

5:N; 6:Y;

7:N

Edmundson 2011 [44]

2005-2008 (4 years)

Ireland

566

Nurses, doctors, radio-graphers, occupational therapists, porters, physiotherapists; hospital (orthopaedic unit)

Nose

Twice a year as far as possible

27 (4.8)c

 

1:Y; 2:Y;

3:N; 4:N;

5:N; 6:Y;

7:N

Garcia Lozano 2012 [45]

2011 (1 month)

Spain

62

HCWs involved in treat-ment of MRSA-positive patients; hospital; (ICU in an institute of oncology)

Nose, pharynx

ND

1 (1.6)

 

1:Y; 2:N;

3:N; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:N;

7:N

Gruber 2013 [46]

2006-2007 (6 months)

Germany

64

Staff members; nursing home (n = 8), geriatric clinic (n = 2)

Nose, throat

ND

2 (3.1)

Nursing home 4.0

1:Y; 2:N;

Geriatric clinic 0.0

3:N; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:N;

7:N

Heudorf 2002 [47]

2000-2001 (6 months)

Germany

158

Staff members; nursing home and geriatric rehabilitation unit

Nose, throat

ND

1 (0.6)

 

1:Y; 2:N;

3:N; 4:N;

5:N; 6:N;

7:N

Ibarra 2008 [48]

2006-2007 (16 months)

US, South Texas

257

Nurses, physicians, other health care personnel; paediatric hospital

Nose

ND

30 (12.0)

Nurses 12.0

1:Y; 2:Y;

Physicians 13.0

3:N; 4:N;

Other HCWs 11.0

5:Y; 6:Y;

 

7:N

Kaminski 2007 [49]

2001-2002 (4 months)

Germany

324

Nurses and physicians involved in the treatment of MRSA-positive patients; hospital (trauma unit)

Nose, throat

ND

17 (5.3)

 

1:Y; 2:Y;

3:N; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:N;

7:N

Kampf 2003 [50]

1995-1996 (12 months)

Germany

447

Nursing and medical staff); hospital (ICU and general ward)

Nose, oro-pharynx

Episodal staff screening

3 (0.7)

Nursing 0.8

1:Y; 2:Y;

Medical 0.0

3:N; 4:N;

General ward 0.7

5:Y; 6:Y;

ICU 0.6

7:N

March 2010 [51]

2008 (1 month)

Italy

69

Nurses, physicians and other staff; LTCF-E (n = 5)

Nose, oro-pharynx, inguinum

ND

10 (14.5)

 

1:Y; 2:N;

3:Y; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:N;

7:N

Monaco 2009 [52]

2005 (2 days)

Italy

51

Staff members; nursing home

Nose

ND

3 (5.8)

 

1:Y; 2:N;

3:N; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:N;

7:N

Neuhaus 2002 [53]

2000-2001 (12 months)

Germany

193

Nursing staff; nursing home (n = 61)

Nose, throat

ND

1 (0.5)

 

1:Y; 2:N;

3:N; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:N;

7:Y

Nulens 2005 [54]

2003 (1 day)

United Kingdom

335

Physicians and non-physicians; attendees of a medical congress

Nose

Swabs taken by HCWs them-selves during the congress

1 (0.3)

Physicians 0.5

1:Y; 2:N;

Non-physicians 0.0

3:N; 4:N;

 

5:Y; 6:N;

7:N

Orsi 2008 [55]

ND

Italy

200

Nurses and physicians; hospital (general ward, ICU, cardio- and neurological surgery unit)

Nose

Swabs taken at the beginning of the shift

3 (1.5)

Nurses 1.6

1:Y; 2:N;

Physicians 1.3

3:N; 4:N;

5:N; 6:Y;

7:Y

Prior 2011 [56]

2003 [2003–2010]

Ireland

172c [2.048]d

Nurses, physicians, other staff; hospital (orthopaedic surgery unit)

Nose

Routine pre-employment screening

3 (1.7)c [47 (2.3)]d

 

1:Y; 2:Y;

3:N; 4:N;

5:N; 6:Y;

7:N

Reich-Schupke 2010 [57]

2008 (8 weeks)

Germany

83

Employees; hospital (dermatological ward)

Nose

Swabs taken before starting work

4 (4.8)

 

1:Y; 2:N;

3:N; 4:N;

5:Y; 6:Y;

7:N

Sassmannshausen 2011 [58]

2010 (ND)

Germany

726

HCWs (nurses, physicians, other staff); hospitals (n = 9)

Nose, pharynx

Swabs taken after a non-working weekend

33 (4.5) 23 (3.2%)e

 

1:Y; 2:Y;

3:N; 4:N;

5:N; 6:N;

7:N

Scarnato 2003 [59]

2000 (12 months)

France

193

Nursing staff, physicians, physical therapists, office staff; geriatric wards (acute medical care and long-term care units)

Nose

Once a month

4 (2.1)c

 

1:Y; 2:N;

3:N; 4:Y;

5:Y; 6:Y;

7:N

Schwarzkopf 2010 [60]

ND (12 months)

US, New York

135

Surgeons (resident and attending surgeons); hospital (orthopaedic surgery)

Nose

ND

2 (1.5)

Attending surgeons 2.7

1:Y; 2:N;

Resident surgeons 0.0

3:Y; 4:Y;

 

5:N; 6:N;

7:N

Stahl 2011 [61]

ND

France

565

Physicians (phys.); attendees of medical conferences in France

Nose

ND

29 (5.1)f

Intensive care phys. 8.0

1:Y; 2:Y;

Infect. disease phys. 2.4

3:N; 4:N;

Hygiene phys. 1.6

5:Y; 6: N;

 

7:N

a Abbreviations: ICU intensive care unit, LTCF-E long-term care facility for the elderly, ND not documented.

bDetails for criteria see Table 1.

cData related to the baseline screening.

dData related to the total study period (with repeated screening surveys).

ePositive on two consecutive swabs.

fNumber and percentage calculated by MD.

After consideration of the seven quality criteria, the quality level was assigned as “high” in seven studies [3137] and as “moderate” in 24 studies [3861]. Six of the 31 studies included were based in the United States and 25 in Europe, conducted in eight different countries (France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). Sample size ranged from 13 to 13,195, with a median sample size per study of 200 HCWs (interquartile range, 126–335). A variety of professions were included as participants (e.g. nurses, care assistants, physicians, paramedics, domestic staff, cleaning staff, kitchen staff and administrative staff). Study participants worked in around 14 different specialties. Around 60% of the studies (n = 18) were conducted in acute care hospitals, eight studies in long-term care facilities for the elderly, and one study in medical microbiology laboratories. Four studies were conducted in a non-clinical surrounding such as conferences [42, 43, 54, 61]. All studies performed screening by nasal swabbing; some studies used additional sampling sites. Swabs were collected by research assistants except for two studies, in which swabs were taken by the HCWs themselves [34, 54]. The screening strategy with regard to the timing of the swabbing was described by five studies [32, 36, 41, 55, 57]. Two studies presented data collected by routine screening [37, 56].

A total of 21,289 subjects were included in the review. MRSA colonisation was identified in 388 of the HCWs swabbed, corresponding to a pooled prevalence of 1.8% (95% CI, 1.34%-2.50%). The carriage rate within the individual studies ranged from 0.2% to 15%. When the large study from the Netherlands [37] was excluded from the analysis (because more than 60% of subjects included in the review were supplied by this study), the pooled MRSA prevalence among the remaining 8,094 HCWs increased to 4.4% (95% CI, 3.98%-4.88%). The pooled MRSA prevalence among HCWs in Europe was 1.5% (or 4.0% when the study from the Netherlands was excluded) and was significantly lower than the value estimated for HCWs in the United States (p< 0.001), with a pooled prevalence of 6.6% (95% CI, 5.35%-8.17%). The pooled MSRA prevalence among HCWs screened in a non-clinical surrounding was 3.1% (95% CI, 2.24%-4.13%).

It was not possible to pool MRSA data for different specialties, as only a few papers focused on the same specialty. For specialities covered by at least three papers, the ranges were as follows: 0.5% to 36.0 for long-term care facilities for the elderly [31, 33, 39, 46, 47, 5153], 1.6% to 5.1% for intensive care units [3234, 45], and 4.3% to 15.0% for emergency departments [32, 36, 41].

The pooled MRSA prevalence among HCWs from the high quality studies was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.66%-1.74%) and was significantly lower than among HCWs from methodologically moderate studies (p < 0.001), with a pooled prevalence of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.47%-4.50%). When the study from the Netherlands was excluded, the pooled MRSA prevalence among HCWs from high quality studies increased to 5.4% (95% CI, 4.61%-6.39%).

The meta-analysis of all studies reporting MRSA prevalence rates for nursing staff (n = 8) showed that the risk of MRSA colonisation was 2.58 times higher than for other healthcare staff; the χ2 test showed no evidence of heterogeneity (Figure 2). Visual examination of the funnel plot to assess publication bias revealed no systematic relation between study size and the magnitude of the estimator (funnel plot not shown). When all high quality studies were pooled, the risk for nursing staff was even more pronounced than for other staff (OR 3.66). Nursing staff had an odds ratio of 1.72 when compared with medical staff (Table 3). Stratified analysis by study area showed that in Europe risk of MRSA colonisation was three times higher for nursing staff than for other healthcare staff (OR 3.19), whereas studies conducted in the United States provided no evidence of greater risk (Table 3).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2334-14-363/MediaObjects/12879_2014_Article_3664_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Forest plot showing the risk of MRSA colonisation for healthcare workers. Block with line = Odds ratio with 95% CI. For convenience reasons only the first author of the study is given.

Table 3

Pooled estimates of MRSA colonisation among healthcare workers: stratified analysis

Stratified analysis [sets of studies]

Number of studies

Pooled estimation

Heterogeneity

OR

95% CI

Χ2

p value

Nursing staff versus medical staff [32, 33, 36, 38, 41, 48, 50, 55]

8

1.72

1.07-2.77

4.60

0.71

Nursing staff versus other healthcare staff

     

- high-quality studies [3133, 36]

4

3.66

2.33-5.77

1.18

0.76

- study area Europe [31, 33, 38, 50, 55]

5

3.19

1.98-5.13

1.26

0.87

- study area US [32, 36, 41, 48]

4

2.07

0.83-5.15

6.4

0.09

Discussion

This review incorporated 31 studies on MRSA prevalence rates among HCWs in Europe and the United States. Only studies conducted in a non-outbreak setting were included. The pooled prevalence of MRSA colonisation among HCWs was estimated as 1.8%. When the study of Vos et al. [37] reporting data of routine screening from the Netherlands was excluded, pooled prevalence increased to 4.3%. This estimate is slightly lower than the result of a previously conducted review, which estimated the average MRSA carriage rate among HCWs as 4.6% [6]. Bearing in mind that estimates of Albrich and Harbarth [6] were based on worldwide data and in a variety of endemic and outbreak settings, the similarity between the results is surprising. The authors themselves pointed out that the studies on endemic settings and outbreaks were quite heterogenous [6], so that direct comparison does not appear appropriate. We believe that the methods used in non-outbreak studies included in our review permit a more valid estimation of MRSA prevalence, than studies performed during outbreaks which usually focus on the efficacy of the measures taken. Our estimate should be compared with published values in the endemic setting. It is towards the lower end of the range of 2% to 15% given in [13] and about half the value of 8.1% estimated by [6].

Our review has shown that MRSA carriage in HCWs varies widely over a range between under 1% and 15%. Carriage rates among HCWs are much higher than among community members without known risk factors (around 0.2% [62]). MRSA carriage was higher among HCWs in the United States than in Europe but carriage was not as high as could have been expected, if it is considered that the proportion of methicillin-resistance of S. aureus isolates in infected patients is three times higher in the USA than in Europe (60% vs. 20%) [1, 2]. Within Europe, there is a north to south gradient, with less than 1% invasive MRSA infections in northern Europe and more than 25% in southern and south-eastern Europe [1]. Our data cannot be used to confirm this gradient for HCWs, as there are few studies from countries with very low or very high prevalence. In Italy, the MRSA prevalence in patients is between 25% and 50% [1], and MRSA carriage rates in HCWs varied between 1.5% and 14.5% (n = 3 studies).

Although study participants were in a variety of occupations, occupation-related carriage rates combined with absolute figures were reported in fewer than 10 studies and only for nurses and physicians. We found significantly elevated risks for nursing staff. According to our data, the risk for nursing staff of being colonised with MRSA was almost two-fold higher than for medical staff and three-fold higher than for other healthcare staff. To our knowledge, this comparison of pooled MRSA prevalence data between nursing and medical staff has not been conducted in other studies. Our finding is concordant with previous studies [32, 38, 41] and can be explained by the more frequent and close contact of nurses with patients than for other healthcare professionals. Other studies have reported poor associations between profession and MRSA carriage rate [33, 48].

With regard to high risk units, the mean proportions of MRSA are apparently higher in staff working in emergency departments, though no significant trend was observed. It is unclear from our data whether non-clinical settings such as nursing homes or neurological rehabilitation units can be regarded as high risk units with regard to MRSA exposure for staff. But in Germany, a large proportion of claims to the compensation board for MRSA infections are made by nursing staff from nursing homes for the elderly [12].

The methodological quality of the studies was quite inconsistent with respect to sample size, response rate and efforts to address potential sources of bias. Only seven studies were assessed as being high-quality studies. Pooled MRSA carriage rate was higher among HCWs from high quality studies than for moderate-quality studies. There is no apparent explanation for this observation.

Levels of staff MRSA carriage in published studies are generally difficult to interpret. The most important reasons for misclassification are sampling site, and the frequency and timing of HCW screening [6, 13]. Only the anterior nares were used as sampling sites in most studies, this could lead to underestimation of the true prevalence of MRSA carriage. The reliability of the result could also have been affected if the nasal samples were taken by different staff members, rather than just by one trained study assistant. The timing of the screening test will have an important influence on the results obtained, as MRSA colonisation is often transient - as has been shown by several prospective cohort studies [7, 33, 59]. As nasal samples were collected at a single point of time in almost all studies included and in most cases at times convenient to the subjects during or after their work shift, no distinction between transient or persistent carriage is possible [6]. The question, whether swabs taken from HCWs outside their clinical environment might be more representative of the prevalence of persistent MRSA carriage status, cannot be answered by our data.

Routine staff screening for MRSA is highly contentious [63]. Opponents of routine staff screening argue that there is no proof of its benefit [43], that there is a risk of stigmatisation of those affected and that reliable evidence is limited on the effectiveness of staff screening for the prevention and control of MRSA in an endemic setting [13].

Limitations

Most studies included in this review achieved only a moderate quality level. This is partly explained by our search strategy. Our review was not limited to peer-reviewed publications, as otherwise many studies would have been missed [34, 39, 40, 47, 52, 56, 58, 61]. Due to the nature of the publications, it was not always clear whether the reporting of the study or the study itself had shortcomings. Even with this consideration, the number of good quality studies was surprisingly small. All conclusions drawn from our review should therefore be regarded with scepticism.

Conclusions

We found that MRSA prevalence among HCWs in non-outbreak settings was no higher than carriage rates estimated for outbreaks. Our estimate is in the lower half of the range of the published MRSA rates in the endemic setting. More attention should be given to the prevention of MRSA colonisation in nursing staff, as this professional group seem to experience the highest risk for MRSA colonisation. Better standardization of screening strategies of HCWs is needed, as sampling site, frequency and timing of HCW screening are the most important reasons for misclassification.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This systematic review was conducted in the scope of the regular work tasks of the authors. No particular fund was received for this systematic review. However, the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing of the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) receives an unrestricted fund of the Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare services (BGW) on an annual basis to maintain the working group at the UKE. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Occupational Health Research, Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services
(2)
Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf

References

  1. European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network: Antimicrobial resistance surveillance in Europe. Annual Report of the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net) 2012. 2013, Stockholm: ECDCGoogle Scholar
  2. NNIS: National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control. 2004, 32: 470-485.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Gagliotti C, Balode A, Baquero F, Degener J, Grundmann H, Gur D, Jarlier V, Kahlmeter G, Monen J, Monnet DL, Rossolini GM, Suetens C, Weist K, Heuer O: Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus: bad news and good news from the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net, formerly EARSS), 2002 to 2009. Euro Surveill. 2011, 16: pii19819-Google Scholar
  4. Dulon M, Haamann F, Peters C, Schablon A, Nienhaus A: MRSA prevalence in European healthcare settings: a review. BMC Infect Dis. 2011, 11: 138-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Acton DS, Plat-Sinnige MJ, van Wamel W, de Groot N, van Belkum A: Intestinal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: how does its frequency compare with that of nasal carriage and what is its clinical impact?. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009, 28: 115-127.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Albrich WC, Harbarth S: Health-care workers: source, vector, or victim of MRSA?. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008, 8: 289-301.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cookson B, Peters B, Webster M, Phillips I, Rahman M, Noble W: Staff carriage of epidemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol. 1989, 27: 1471-1476.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Safdar N, Bradley EA: The risk of infection after nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Med. 2008, 121: 310-315.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Wertheim HF, Melles DC, Vos MC, van Leeuwen W, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA, Nouwen JL: The role of nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infections. Lancet Infect Dis. 2005, 5: 751-762.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Nouwen JL, Fieren MW, Snijders S, Verbrugh HA, van Belkum A: Persistent (not intermittent) nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus is the determinant of CPD-related infections. Kidney Int. 2005, 67: 1084-1092.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Muder RR, Brennen C, Goetz AM: Infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among hospital employees. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1993, 14: 576-578.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Haamann F, Dulon M, Nienhaus A: MRSA as an occupational disease: a case series. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2011, 84: 259-266.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawkins G, Stewart S, Blatchford O, Reilly J: Should healthcare workers be screened routinely for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? A review of the evidence. J Hosp Infect. 2011, 77: 285-289.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Vonberg RP, Stamm-Balderjahn S, Hansen S, Zuschneid I, Ruden H, Behnke M, Gastmeier P: How often do asymptomatic healthcare workers cause methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outbreaks? A systematic evaluation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006, 27: 1123-1127.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cimolai N: The role of healthcare personnel in the maintenance and spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Public Health. 2008, 1: 78-100.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Sherertz RJ, Reagan DR, Hampton KD, Robertson KL, Streed SA, Hoen HM, Thomas R, Gwaltney JM: A cloud adult: the Staphylococcus aureus-virus interaction revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1996, 124: 539-547.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Coia JE, Duckworth GJ, Edwards DI, Farrington M, Fry C, Humphreys H, Mallaghan C, Tucker DR: Guidelines for the control and prevention of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in healthcare facilities. J Hosp Infect. 2006, 63 (Suppl 1): S1-44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ben-David D, Mermel LA, Parenteau S: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission: the possible importance of unrecognized health care worker carriage. Am J Infect Control. 2008, 36: 93-97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Infection Prevention Working Party: MRSA Hospital. [http://www.eursafety.eu/pdf/MRSA-Richtlinien-KH_NL.pdf]
  20. Centre NDS: A Strategy for the Control of Antimicrobial Resistance in Ireland. 2001, Ireland: Report of the Subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Commitee of the National Disease Surveillance Center SARIGoogle Scholar
  21. Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention am Robert Koch-Institut (KRINKO): Empfehlung zur Prävention und Kontrolle von Methicillin-resistenten Staphylococcus-aureus-Stämmen (MRSA) in Krankenhäusern und anderen medizinischen Einrichtungen - Mitteilung der Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention am RKI. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz. 1999, 42: 954-958.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Muto CA, Jernigan JA, Ostrowsky BE, Richet HM, Jarvis WR, Boyce JM, Farr BM: SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and enterococcus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003, 24: 362-386.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Verhoeven PO, Grattard F, Carricajo A, Lucht F, Cazorla C, Garraud O, Pozzetto B, Berthelot P: An algorithm based on one or two nasal samples is accurate to identify persistent nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012, 18: 551-557.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Simon A, Exner M, Kramer A, Engelhart S: Umsetzung der MRSA-Empfehlung der KRINKO von 1999 - Aktuelle Hinweise des Vorstandes der DGHK. Hyg Med. 2009, 34: 90-101.Google Scholar
  25. Robert Koch-Institut (RKI): Kontrolle der Weiterverbreitung von MRSA - Personal im Gesundheitsdienst als Carrier. Epidemiol Bull. 2008, 36: 303-311.Google Scholar
  26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6: e1000097-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Loney PL, Chambers LW, Bennett KJ, Roberts JG, Stratford PW: Critical appraisal of the health research literature: prevalence or incidence of a health problem. Chronic Dis Can. 1998, 19: 170-176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology. 2007, 18: 800-804.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Higgins JPT, Green S: The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0. [updated March 2011]. 2011, Available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org Google Scholar
  30. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997, 315: 629-634.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Baldwin NS, Gilpin DF, Hughes CM, Kearney MP, Gardiner DA, Cardwell C, Tunney MM: Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in residents and staff in nursing homes in Northern Ireland. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009, 57: 620-626.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Elie-Turenne MC, Fernandes H, Mediavilla JR, Rosenthal M, Mathema B, Singh A, Cohen TR, Pawar KA, Shahidi H, Kreiswirth BN, Deitch EA: Prevalence and characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus colonization among healthcare professionals in an urban teaching hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010, 31: 574-580.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Eveillard M, Martin Y, Hidri N, Boussougant Y, Joly-Guillou ML: Carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among hospital employees: prevalence, duration, and transmission to households. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004, 25: 114-120.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jager MM, Murk JL, Pique R, Wulf MW, Leenders AC, Buiting AG, Bogaards JA, Kluytmans JA, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM: Prevalence of carriage of meticillin-susceptible and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in employees of five microbiology laboratories in The Netherlands. J Hosp Infect. 2010, 74: 292-294.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnston CP, Stokes AK, Ross T, Cai M, Carroll KC, Cosgrove SE, Perl TM: Staphylococcus aureus colonization among healthcare workers at a tertiary care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007, 28: 1404-1407.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Suffoletto BP, Cannon EH, Ilkhanipour K, Yealy DM: Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization in emergency department personnel. Ann Emerg Med. 2008, 52: 529-533.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Vos MC, Behrendt MD, Melles DC, Mollema FP, de Groot W, Parlevliet G, Ott A, Horst-Kreft D, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA: 5 years of experience implementing a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus search and destroy policy at the largest university medical center in the Netherlands. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009, 30: 977-984.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Amorim ML, Vasconcelos C, Oliveira DC, Azevedo A, Calado E, Faria NA, Pereira M, Castro AP, Moreira A, Aires E, Cabeda JM, Ramos MH, Amorim JM, de Lencastre H: Epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal colonization among patients and healthcare workers in a Portuguese hospital: a pre-intervention study toward the control of MRSA. Microb Drug Resist. 2009, 15: 19-26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Becker J, Martin A: Screening for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a nursing home for elderly. Int J Med Microbiol. 2013, 303: 31-32.Google Scholar
  40. Berthelot P, Grattard F, Fascia P, Martin I, Mallaval FO, Ros A, Pozzetto B, Lucht F: Is nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus more prevalent among student healthcare workers?. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004, 25: 364-365.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Bisaga A, Paquette K, Sabatini L, Lovell EO: A prevalence study of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in emergency department health care workers. Ann Emerg Med. 2008, 52: 525-528.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Boisseau D, Alfandari S, Gauzit R, Rabaud C, Stahl JP: Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage during the infectious diseases national congress in France. Med Mal Infect. 2012, 42: 435-439.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Brady RR, McDermott C, Graham C, Harrison EM, Eunson G, Fraise AP, Dunlop MG, Gibb AP: A prevalence screen of MRSA nasal colonisation amongst UK doctors in a non-clinical environment. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009, 28: 991-995.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Edmundson SP, Hirpara KM, Bennett D: The effectiveness of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonisation screening in asymptomatic healthcare workers in an Irish orthopaedic unit. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011, 30: 1063-1066.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Garcia-Lozano T, Egido A, Contel E, Picon MI, Martinez MA, Aznar E: [Is it necessary to know which workers are carriers of MRSA in contact with cancer patients?]. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2012, 25: 252-255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Gruber I, Heudorf U, Werner G, Pfeifer Y, Imirzalioglu C, Ackermann H, Brandt C, Besier S, Wichelhaus TA: Multidrug-resistant bacteria in geriatric clinics, nursing homes, and ambulant care–prevalence and risk factors. Int J Med Microbiol. 2013, 303: 405-409.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Heudorf U, Bremer V, Heuck D, Brune I, Wichelhaus TA: Prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in nursing homes as weil as in a geriatrie rehabilitation unit [MRSA-Prävalenz bei Bewohnern von Alten- und Pflegeheimen sowie bei Patienten einer geriatrischen Rehabilitationsklinik]. Hyg Med. 2002, 27: 6-9.Google Scholar
  48. Ibarra M, Flatt T, van Maele D, Ahmed A, Fergie J, Purcell K: Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage in healthcare workers. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008, 27: 1109-1111.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kaminski A, Kammler J, Wick M, Muhr G, Kutscha-Lissberg F: Transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among hospital staff in a German trauma centre: a problem without a current solution?. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007, 89: 642-645.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Kampf G, Adena S, Ruden H, Weist K: Inducibility and potential role of MecA-gene-positive oxacillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus from colonized healthcare workers as a source for nosocomial infections. J Hosp Infect. 2003, 54: 124-129.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. March A, Aschbacher R, Dhanji H, Livermore DM, Bottcher A, Sleghel F, Maggi S, Noale M, Larcher C, Woodford N: Colonization of residents and staff of a long-term-care facility and adjacent acute-care hospital geriatric unit by multiresistant bacteria. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010, 16: 934-944.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Monaco M, Bombana E, Trezzi L, Regattin L, Brusaferro S, Pantosti A, Goglio A: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonising residents and staff members in a nursing home in Northern Italy. J Hosp Infect. 2009, 73: 182-184.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Neuhaus B, Bocter N, Braulke C, Heuck C, Witte W: Survey of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in long-term facilities for the aged in northrhine westphalia [Studie zum Vorkommen von Methicillin-resistenten Staphylococcus aureus in Alten- und Altenpflegeheimen in Nordrhein-Westfalen]. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz. 2002, 45: 894-904.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Nulens E, Gould I, MacKenzie F, Deplano A, Cookson B, Alp E, Bouza E, Voss A: Staphylococcus aureus carriage among participants at the 13th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005, 24: 145-148.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Orsi GB, Marrone R, Ferraro F, Tavella F, Colosi A: [Low colonization with MRSA among health-care workers in an Italian hospital]. Ann Ig. 2008, 20: 503-508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Prior AR, Ray R, O'Gorman J, Lynch M: Screening of healthcare workers for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: is it worth it?. J Hosp Infect. 2011, 79: 274-275.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Reich-Schupke S, Geis G, Reising M, Altmeyer P, Stucker M: MRSA in dermatology - Prospective epidemiological study in employees and patients of a dermatological department of a university hospital. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2010, 8: 607-613.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Sassmannshausen R: Prävalenz und Sanierung von Methicillin-resistenten Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bei Klinikpersonal im deutschen Teil des EUREGIO-Gebietes. PhD thesis. 2012, Universität Münster, Institut für HygieneGoogle Scholar
  59. Scarnato F, Mallaret MR, Croize J, Kouabenan DR, Dubois M, Maitre A, DeGaudemaris R: Incidence and prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage among healthcare workers in geriatric departments: relevance to preventive measures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003, 24: 456-458.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Schwarzkopf R, Takemoto RC, Immerman I, Slover JD, Bosco JA: Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus colonization in orthopaedic surgeons and their patients: a prospective cohort controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010, 92: 1815-1819.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Stahl JP, Mignon A, Lucet JC, Marmiesse M, Rabaud C, Berthelot P, Dupont H: Staphylococcus aureus carriage in physicians attending three national meetings about infectious diseases (R2388) [abstract]. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011, 17 (Suppl 4): S713-Google Scholar
  62. Salgado CD, Farr BM, Calfee DP: Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a meta-analysis of prevalence and risk factors. Clin Infect Dis. 2003, 36: 131-139.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Dancer SJ: Considering the introduction of universal MRSA screening. J Hosp Infect. 2008, 69: 315-320.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/14/363/prepub

Copyright

© Dulon et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement