Send to

Choose Destination
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2011 Sep;54(9):1126-34. doi: 10.1007/s00103-011-1349-3.

[MRSA bloodstream infections in hospitals in Frankfurt/Main, Germany, 2010 : Results of the mandatory notification and suggestions for improvement].

[Article in German]

Author information

Amt für Gesundheit, Breite Gasse 28, 60313, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.


Since 1 July 2009 in accordance with the statuary order based on the German law for infectious diseases (Infektionsschutzgesetz), MRSA in blood and liquor must be notified to the public health authorities. The aim of extension of the notification to report is to improve the surveillance of nosocomial infections and the prevention of nosocomial MRSA infections. In addition to MRSA detection, data on symptoms and risk factors, e.g., medical devices, must also be reported. In this report, data of bloodstream MRSA infections in hospitals in Frankfurt/Main, Germany, for the first complete year (2010)were evaluated. In 2010, 58 MRSA-positive bloodstream infections were reported by the 17 hospitals in Frankfurt to the health protection authorities, i.e., 0.0360 MRSA/1,000 patient-days (range: 0- 0.109/1,000 patient-days). However, 10 of these infections initially had not been reported to the public health department in charge for the hospitals, but to the health departments according to the patient's addresses. Although most of the infections were reported from large hospitals (>100,000 patient-days/year), the highest incidences (0.0416/1,000 patient-days) were reported from small hospitals (<50,000 patient-days/year). Of the blood specimen, 13 (22.4%) were drawn on the first day of hospital stay, thus, indicating an imported infection. While 90% of the patients with MRSA in the bloodstream suffered from fever, 80% had sepsis and 34.5% suffered from pneumonia. Medical devices, such as central venous catheters and PEG, were reported from 60% of the patients. In the MRE network Rhine-Main region, the public health authorities asked for some more detailed information, such as risk factors for MRSA colonization (history for MRSA, recent hospital stay or antibiotic therapy, skin disorders, dialysis, residence in a retirements home), and for screening results as well as for the MRSA management, i.e., isolation of the patient and, if necessary, the contact patient. In 55% of the cases, the patients were identified by the clinics themselves as being patients with MRSA risk factors, mainly because of a history of MRSA (29%), recent hospital stay (71%), and antibiotic therapy during the last 6 months (52%). Screening was performed in 31 (53%) of the patients, most of them (71%) with positive MRSA nose swab. If the patients were screened, significantly fewer contact patients had to be screened and isolated later. Thus, to improve surveillance data on MRSA bloodstream infections, the notification route to the public health authorities responsible for the clinic hosting the patient must be strictly obeyed in order to avoid underreporting und underassessment of nosocomial infection. Although asking for clinical symptoms may be useful to validate the result in some cases, focus should be placed on risk factors and risk management, including screening and isolation. Only then can the aim of improving surveillance and reduction of nosocomial MRSA infection be achieved.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center