Efficacy and acceptability of rectal and perineal sampling for identifying gastrointestinal colonization with extended spectrum β-lactamase Enterobacteriaceae. (August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dyakova, E.; Bisnauthsing, K.N.; Querol-Rubiera, A.; Patel, A.; Ahanonu, C.; Tosas Auguet, O.; Edgeworth, J.D.; Goldenberg, S.D.; Otter, J.A.
• Is Part Of: Clinical microbiology and infection. Volume 23:Number 8(2017)
• Page Start: 577.e1
• Page End: 577.e3
• Publication Date: 2017-08
• Subjects: Colonization -- Diagnostic sensitivity -- Extended spectrum β-lactamase -- Patient acceptability -- Screening -- Surveillance cultures -- Staff acceptability; Medical microbiology -- Periodicals; Diagnostic microbiology -- Periodicals; Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; Infection -- Periodicals; 616.01
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.02.019
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1198-743X

Abstract

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.