Young Practitioners Forum: What Really Matters.

After completing an orthopaedic trauma fellowship, what challenges will you have as regard to maintaining balance and perspective in your new position in society? How will you view yourself, family, and your profession? These are simple suggestions on maintaining passion for your profession.

Evaluation of screening risk and nonrisk patients for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on admission in an acute care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylocccus aureus (MRSA) is advocated as part of control measures, but screening all patients on admission to hospital may not be cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the additional yield of screening all patients on admission compared with only patients with risk factors and to assess cost aspects. METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized observational study of screening nonrisk patients ≤72 hours of admission compared with only screening patients with risk factors over 3 years in a tertiary referral hospital was conducted. We also assessed the costs of screening both groups. RESULTS: A total of 48 of 892 (5%) patients was MRSA positive; 28 of 314 (9%) during year 1, 12 of 257 (5%) during year 2, and 8 of 321 (2%) during year 3. There were significantly fewer MRSA-positive patients among nonrisk compared with MRSA-risk patients: 4 of 340 (1%) versus 44 of 552 (8%), P ≤ .0001, respectively. However, screening nonrisk patients increased the number of screening samples by 62% with a proportionate increase in the costs of screening. A backward stepwise logistic regression model identified age > 70 years, diagnosis of chronic pulmonary disease, previous MRSA infection, and admission to hospital during the previous 18 months as the most important independent predictors to discriminate between MRSA-positive and MRSA-negative patients on admission (94.3% accuracy, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Screening patients without risk factors increased the number of screenings and costs but resulted in few additional cases being detected. In a hospital where MRSA is endemic, targeted screening of at-risk patients on admission remains the most efficient strategy for the early identification of MRSA-positive patients.

The effect of rapid screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on the identification and earlier isolation of MRSA-positive patients.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine whether rapid screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays leads to the earlier isolation of patients at risk for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization, (2) to assess compliance with routine MRSA screening protocols, (3) to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MRSA real-time PCR assay (Cepheid) by comparison with culture, and (4) to compare turnaround times for PCR assay results with those for culture results. DESIGN: Before-and-after study conducted in a 700-bed acute tertiary care referral hospital. Study periods were (1) a 5-week period before PCR testing began, (2) a 10-week period when the PCR assay was used, and (3) a 5-week period after PCR testing was discontinued. RESULTS: Among 489 at-risk patients, MRSA was isolated from 20 (33%) of 60 patients during period 1, 77 (22%) of 349 patients during period 2, and 18 (23%) of 80 patients during period 3. Twenty-two (27%) of 82 at-risk patients were not screened during period 1, compared with 40 (10%) of 389 at-risk patients not screened during period 2 (P < .001). More MRSA-positive patients were preemptively isolated during periods 1 and 3 compared with period 2 (34 [24%] of 140 vs 28 [8%] of 389; P < .001); however, more MRSA-positive patients were isolated after notification of MRSA-positive results during period 2 (47 [13%] of 349) compared with periods 1 and 3 (2 [1%] of 140; P < .001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the PCR assay were 95%, 97%, 82%, and 99%, respectively. The mean turnaround time from receipt of specimens in the laboratory to PCR assay result was 2.6 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid screening with the Xpert MRSA PCR assay facilitated compliance with screening policies and the earlier isolation of MRSA-positive patients. Discrepant results confirm that PCR testing should be used as a screening tool rather than as a diagnostic tool.