Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Aug;23(8):577.e1-577.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.02.019. Epub 2017 Feb 24.

Efficacy and acceptability of rectal and perineal sampling for identifying gastrointestinal colonization with extended spectrum β-lactamase Enterobacteriaceae.

Author information

1
Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, King's College London & Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Imperial College London Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in HCAI and AMR, and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Infection Prevention and Control, London, UK.
2
Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, King's College London & Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
3
Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, King's College London & Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Imperial College London Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in HCAI and AMR, and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Infection Prevention and Control, London, UK. Electronic address: j.otter@imperial.ac.uk.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

We evaluated 'pre-laboratory' factors associated with the detection of extended spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) colonization including anatomical site, and staff and patient factors.

METHODS:

All admissions to a large London hospital over 3 months were approached to provide rectal and perineal swabs, which were cultured for ESBL-E using chromogenic media. ESBL-E detection rates for patient- or staff-collected rectal or perineal swabs were compared using McNemar tests. Binary logistic regression was used to explore factors associated with patients declining to provide a rectal swab. The impact of simplifying the verbal study description to patients to improve the participation rate was evaluated.

RESULTS:

Carriage of ESBL-E was significantly higher in rectal swabs than perineal swabs (7.8% of 4006 versus 3.8% of 4006, p <0.001), whether collected by staff or patients; 31.9% of 869 patients did not provide a rectal swab before the change in study description compared with 7.6% of 3690 patients afterwards (p <0.001). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with patients declining to provide a rectal swab were younger age (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00), female gender (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.04-1.52), transfers from other hospitals (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.07-2.93) or an unknown admission route (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.09-2.37), being admitted before the change in study description (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.48), and the staff member who consented the patient (p <0.001); ethnicity was not a significant factor.

CONCLUSIONS:

Rectal swabs are recommended for the detection of ESBL-E colonization. Staff and patient factors influence whether patients participate in prevalence studies, which may skew their findings.

KEYWORDS:

Colonization; Diagnostic sensitivity; Extended spectrum β-lactamase; Patient acceptability; Screening; Staff acceptability; Surveillance cultures

PMID:
28242273
DOI:
10.1016/j.cmi.2017.02.019
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center