Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-22T10:51:21.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of Two-Step Tuberculin Skin Testing for Newly Employed Healthcare Workers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Elizabeth C. Frenzel ,
Georgia A. Thomas  and
Hend A. Hanna
Elizabeth C. Frenzel*
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
Georgia A. Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
Hend A. Hanna
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
*
Employee Health, Unit 631, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, P.O. Box 301402, Houston, TX 77230-1402 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the time of hire, 4059 of 6522 healthcare workers required a 2-step tuberculin skin test; 114 workers (2.8%) demonstrated a boosted reaction after the second step. Boosted reactions were significantly associated with male sex and older age. A verbal history of previous tuberculin skin test results was not a reliable indicator of baseline tuberculin skin test status at the time of hire.

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , May 2006 , pp. 512 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care facilities, 1994. MMWR 1994; 43(RR-13):1–132.Google Scholar
2.Hallack, KM, Schenk, M, Neale, AV. Evaluation of the two-step tuberculin skin test in health care workers at an inner-city medical center. J Occup Environ Med 1999;41:393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Kraut, A, Coodin, M, Plessis, R, McLean, D. Predictors of positive tuberculin skin test (TST) results after 2-step TST among health care workers in Manitoba, Canada. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:e113–e118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Sepkowitz, KA, Feldman, J, Louther, J, et al. Benefit of two-step PPD testing of new employees at a New York City hospital. Am J Infect Control 1997; 25:283–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Sherman, RA, Shimoda, KJ. Tuberculosis tracking: determining the frequency of the booster effect in patients and staff. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29:7–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Valenti, WM, Andrews, BA, Presley, BA, Reifler, CB. Absence of the booster phenomenon in serial tuberculin skin testing. Am Rev Respir Dis 1982; 125:323–325.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Menzies, D. Interpretation of repeated tuberculin tests, boosting, conversion, and reversion. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 159:15–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Mazurek, GH, Villarino, ME. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for using the QuantiFERON-TB test for diagnosing latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. MMWR Recomm Rep 2003; 52(RR-2):15–18.Google ScholarPubMed