Does a Positive Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal Screen Predict the Risk for MRSA Skin and Soft Tissue Infection?

BACKGROUND: Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are often caused by gram-positive bacteria that colonize the skin. Given the overuse of antibiotics, SSTIs are increasingly caused by resistant bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Guidance on the utility of MRSA nasal screening for MRSA SSTI is limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether MRSA nasal screening predicts the risk of MRSA SSTIs. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with an SSTI diagnosis that had MRSA nasal screening and wound cultures obtained within 48 hours of starting antibiotics. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using VassarStats. Pretest and posttest probabilities were estimated with Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: A total of 884 patient encounters were reviewed between December 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021, and 300 patient encounters were included. The prevalence of MRSA SSTI was 18.3%. The MRSA nasal colonization had a sensitivity of 63.6%, specificity of 93.9%, positive predictive value of 70.0% (95% CI = 55.2%-81.7%), negative predictive value of 92.0% (95% CI = 87.7%-94.9%), positive likelihood ratio of 10.39 (95% CI = 6.12-17.65), negative likelihood ratio of 0.39 (95% CI = 0.27-0.55), positive posttest probability of 70.0%, and negative posttest probability of 8.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high positive likelihood ratio, a positive MRSA nasal screen was associated with a large increase in the probability of MRSA SSTI at our institution, and a negative MRSA nasal screen was associated with a small but potentially significant decrease in the probability of MRSA SSTI.

Survey on Neonatal End-of-Life Comfort Care Guidelines Across America.

CONTEXT: Infants of age less than one year have the highest mortality rate in pediatrics. The American Academy of Pediatrics published guidelines for palliative care in 2013; however, significant variation persists among local protocols addressing neonatal comfort care at the end-of-life (EOL). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate current neonatal EOL comfort care practices and clinician satisfaction across America. METHODS: After institutional review board approval (516005), an anonymous, electronic survey was sent to members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine. Members of the listserv include neonatologists, neonatal fellow physicians, neonatal nurses, and neonatal nurse practitioners from across America (U.S. and Canada). RESULTS: There were 346/3000 (11.5%) responses with wide geographic distribution and high levels of intensive care responding (46.1% Level IV, 50.9% Level III, 3.0% Level II). Nearly half (45.2%) reported that their primary institution did not have neonatal comfort care guidelines. Of those reporting institutional neonatal comfort care guidelines, 19.1% do not address pain symptom management. Most guidelines also do not address gastrointestinal distress, anxiety, or secretions. Thirty-nine percent of respondents stated that their institution did not address physician compassion fatigue. Overall, 91.8% of respondents felt that their institution would benefit from further education/training in neonatal EOL care. CONCLUSION: Across America, respondents confirmed significant variation and verified many institutions do not formally address neonatal EOL comfort care. Institutions with guidelines commonly appear to lack crucial areas of palliative care including patient symptom management and provider compassion fatigue. The overwhelming majority of respondents felt that their institutions would benefit from further neonatal EOL care training.