Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:29:28.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Staphylococcal nasal carriage in mothers, babies and staff in a maternity hospital

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

K. F. Anderson ,
J. R. Coulter  and
D. Ruth Keynes
K. F. Anderson
Affiliation:
Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, South Australia
J. R. Coulter
Affiliation:
Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, South Australia
D. Ruth Keynes
Affiliation:
Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, South Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The nasal carriage of 407 mothers before, during and after admission to a maternity hospital and that of their babies during and after hospital stay was investigated together with the nasal carriage by the hospital staff.

The nasal carrier rate among mothers admitted to hospital was 38%, 40% of these strains being resistant to penicillin.

The nasal carrier rate among the nursing staff was 38 and 72% of these were resistant to penicillin.

If a population is swabbed only once approximately 25% of the carriers will be missed. Those showing slight carriage were no more likely to be missed than those showing heavy carriage. The concentration of organisms in the nose is evidently varying continuously.

Heavy carriers are no more likely to transmit than light carriers and it is therefore not right to report on the profusion or otherwise of growth if that implies a greater chance of transmission.

The biggest increase in resistance among nursing staff strains occurred in the non-typable group which could be explained by resistance to phage developing concurrent with resistance to antibiotics.

The difference in phage-distribution between patient and staff strains centred in group II which formed 19% of patient strains but only 7% of hospital strains.

The carrier rate was no higher for those with a history of hospital admission within 12 months or without a history of staphylococcal sepsis.

Those giving a history of penicillin therapy had the same resistance rate as those without a history of such therapy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 1961 , pp. 15 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

References

REFERENCES

Cadness-Graves, B., Williams, R., Harper, G. J. & Miles, A. A. (1943). Slide-test for coagulase-positive staphylococci. Lancet, i, 736.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, A. C. (1949). Incidence of Staphylococcus aureus in the anterior nares of healthy children. Lancet, ii, 411.Google Scholar
Elek, S. D. (1958). Staphylococcus pyogenes and its Relation to Disease. Edinburgh: E. and S. Livingstone, Ltd.Google Scholar
Gould, J. C. & McKillop, E. J. (1954). The carriage of Staphylococcus pyogenes var aureus in the human nose. J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, J. C. (1955). Origin of penicillin-resistant. Staphylococcus pyogenes Nature, Lond., 176, 176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, K. J., Beavon, J. & Grffine, E. (1959). The effect of neomycin on the phage typing of staphylococci. Lancet, i, 908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepper, M. H., Jackson, G. G. & Dowling, H. F. (1955). Characteristics of the micrococcal nasal carrier state among hospital personnel. J. lab. clin. Med. 45, 935.Google ScholarPubMed
Morley, D. C. (1945). A simple method of testing the sensitivity of wound bacteria to penicillin and sulphathiozole by the use of impregnated blotting paper discs. J. Path. Bact. 57, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rountree, P. M. & Barbour, R. G. H. (1951).Nasal carrier rates of Staphylococcus pyogenes in hospital nurses. J. Path. Bact. 63, 313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, R. E. O. & Rippon, J. E. (1952). Bacteriophage typing of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed