Review

Prevention and control of infections in the home

John M. Embil, Brenda Dyck and Pierre Plourde
CMAJ May 26, 2009 180 (11) E82-E86; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.071898

Increasing concern exists that antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms can be acquired in the community or that they can be introduced into the community from health care facilities. Antimicrobial resistance may also evolve or be acquired in the community and be introduced into a health care facility from the community, where the infection can spread widely. 1–6 The suggestions presented in this review provide a basic approach that can be applied to prevent the transmission of current antimicrobial-resistant pathogens and those that may arise in the future.

Prevention is the key step in halting the transmission of these microorganisms. 7–10 Limited recommendations exist for preventing the transmission of these microorganisms in the provision of health care in the community and the home. 3,11–20 Many of the existing recommendations followed in health care facilities cannot easily be transferred to the community or home because of limitations in the environment or resources or the inability to implement measures. Some suggestions to prevent the transmission of respiratory viruses have included the use of masks, gowns and gloves. Although these suggestions are based on meta-analysis of an extensive number of reports and intervention studies, they are resource intensive and are, thus, impractical and unrealistic in the home. 4,5,12

Within the home, the concern about antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) , vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus and Clostridium difficile, in addition to Mycobacterium tuberculosis and respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses, relates to the implications for the patient and other people living with or visiting people infected or colonized with these pathogens, 1,11,12,21–28 as well as to home-based health care providers. The true prevalence and risk of transmission of MRSA, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, extended spectrum β-lactamase–producing gram negative bacteria, Acinetobacter baumanii and C. difficile in the community among patients, their caregivers and family members is not known. However, the risk of transmission is believed to be low. 2,29 This is in contrast to the risk of transmission of respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses and M. tuberculosis, for which the attack rate for people living in the same dwelling is much higher 1,3,13–15

Prevention and control of infections

The chain of transmission (Appendix 1, available online at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/180/11/E82/DC1) may be similar in the home to that in health care facilities. It may include transmission from person to person and from inanimate object to person. This chain should be considered when determining principles of infection prevention and control in the community. 12,16,17 As well as being spread from the patient to family members, health care providers and other patients, these microorganisms may also spread from family members, health care providers and pets to the patient. Each of these may be susceptible hosts. 12,16,17

Microorganisms can spread by contact, droplet, airborne and vector transmission. Contact transmission, which includes both direct and indirect transmission, 8–10,16,17 is the most frequently encountered mechanism of spread of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms in the home environment.

The foundation of infection prevention and control in the health care environment is the use of routine practices. 8 Routine practices include the use of hand hygiene at all times and the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., gloves, gowns, masks, eye protection and face protection when indicated) and environmental controls (e.g., equipment and environmental cleaning) as required. 8 Some of these practices cannot be readily implemented in the home and should be tailored to the available resources, individual situation and potential pathogen.

Hand hygiene is the most important aspect of infection prevention and control activities because it reduces the burden of microorganisms on the hands and minimizes the chance of transmission to other people. 8–10,12,23 Hand hygiene can be performed by using soap and water or, alternatively, an alcohol-based hand rub. 8–10,18, 30–35 In the home, hands may be dried with a dry, clean towel.

The use of antimicrobial hand soaps, compared with the use of regular soaps, provides a greater reduction in the number of bacteria on the hands. Antimicrobial soaps may decreases the transmission of microorganisms from the hands to inanimate objects and food products. 36,37 However, the use of antibacterial soaps may lead to the selection of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. There appear to be no additional health benefits to using triclosan-containing consumer soap. 38,39 This is an area of controversy. Therefore, until more data become available, the only recommendation that can be made is to continue using regular household soap in the home.

Data are also lacking to support the use of special antibacterial cleaning products in the home. Concern has been raised about the potential evolution of bacteria resistant to triclosan. 40 In vitro experiments have suggested a link between exposure to biocides and resistance to antimicrobials; however, this remains a theoretical concern because there is little evidence showing that use of biocides in the community has led to the emergence and spread of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. 41

There is evidence to support the use of alcohol-based hand rubs to break the chain of transmission of microorganisms. 42

For a visitor entering the home of a person who is colonized or infected with MRSA, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus or C. difficile, strict attention should be paid to hand hygiene before and after the visit, with either soap and water or an alcohol-based hand rub. These measures will minimize the risk of acquiring and transmitting these organisms.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

A number of reports summarize Canada’s experience with MRSA; however, this experience is limited primarily to health care facilities and clusters in northern communities. 43–45 MRSA has been characterized into health care–associated MRSA strains and community-associated strains. 46 Community-associated MRSA can affect otherwise healthy people, such as athletes, those who are incarcerated, soldiers, injection drug users, men who have sex with men and those in specific ethnic populations, such as Aboriginal people. 46–52 There are many reports of the isolation of MRSA from domestic pets and farm animals, with the possibility for cross-transmission to humans. 53–56 Community-associated MRSA strains produce the Panton–Valentine leukocidin. 46,48–57 These microorganisms are frequently associated with skin and soft tissue infection and necrotizing pneumonia.

In contrast, MRSA associated with health care typically affects residents of long-term care facilities, individuals who have extensive exposure to health care facilities, as well as people with underlying medical problems. 46

Prevention and control

There are a limited number of reports of the spread of MRSA in the home. 2,22 Proper hand hygiene (Box 1), 8 as well as cleaning of equipment and the environment, is important in both the home and institutions where health care is provided. In the home, it is neither realistic nor practical to attempt to isolate a family member who is colonized or infected with MRSA. Because MRSA is transmitted by direct person-to-person contact, particularly on the hands of caregivers, hand hygiene among all family members, visitors and health care providers is key in the prevention of transmission. 16,17

Figure

Box 1: When to perform hand hygiene 25–27

Because domestic pets may serve as a reservoir of MRSA, hands should always be washed thoroughly with soap and water after contact with animals or their feces. 57,58 In cases of outbreaks within a family of an infection caused by community-associated MRSA that cannot be arrested, a colonized pet may need to be temporarily removed from the home. 57 However, it may be prudent to re-emphasize the importance of personal hygiene before taking such a drastic measure. Skin-to-skin contact should be minimized by avoiding sports and play in which close contact occurs. 16,17,57 Given that this may be difficult, particularly for children, keeping open and draining wounds covered may be a prudent more approach. 57 It is also important to have good personal hygiene and to cover cuts and abrasions.

Some recommend that articles, such as clothing, towels, face cloths and linens, that come into close contact with the body should not be shared among family members. 16,17,57 Clearly, these recommendations may be difficult to implement, particularly in close quarters and where resources are limited. Clothes, household linens, including cleaning cloths, should be washed on a regular basis. The home should be cleaned regularly with standard household cleaners that do not contain antibacterial agents. 16,17

There are no specific recommendations for home nursing. However, routine practices, specifically the use of hand hygiene and gloves, should be used if there is the potential for the hands to become soiled. 8

Environmental contact surfaces should be kept as clean as possible with the use of a disinfectant cleaner. Objects for personal hygiene should not be shared. Intimate apparel, towels, linens, and sports clothing, should be washed at 40°C using a bleach-containing laundry detergent, or at 60°C if a bleach-containing laundry detergent is not used. 17

People infected or colonized with MRSA should pay strict attention to hand hygiene to minimize transmission. Children may attend school and adults may attend work or educational venues; however, the principles of hand hygiene need to be reinforced and any open or draining wound should be covered.

Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci are infrequently observed in the community. They are transmitted in health care facilities by the hands of health care workers 59–61 and by contaminated equipment and surfaces. 61–67 In Canada, the incidence of infection and colonization with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus is very low but has been slowly increasing. 68

Prevention and control

There are no published reports on how to manage the care of patients infected or colonized with this microorganism in the community. General infection prevention and control principles should be followed, and it is critical that strict attention be paid to hand hygiene (Box 1). In addition, contact by family members with potentially infectious material should be avoided at all times. The person infected or colonized with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus should also pay strict attention to hand hygiene to prevent transmission within the household.

Those providing health care in the home should adhere to the routine practices and pay specific attention to hand hygiene and, when necessary, environmental cleaning. 8 The home needs to be cleaned regularly, and clothes and linens should be washed as for the prevention of MRSA transmission. 12,17

Clostridium difficile

The ease with which C. difficile has spread within health care facilities has been attributed to the spores produced by the organism, suboptimal housekeeping practices, the widespread use of antimicrobial agents and inadequate hand hygiene. 69 Although C. difficile transmission has not been reported in the home, the uniforms of health care workers can become contaminated by C. difficile spores, 70 and people with symptomatic and asymptomatic C. difficile infections can shed spores. 71 Spores can be transmitted by the hands of health care workers 72 and by dogs used for hospital visitation. 73,74

One of the key elements for the transmission of C. difficile is the alteration of the gastrointestinal flora. Although the microorganism may be shed asymptomatically in the stool of carriers, susceptible hosts are required for the pathogen to cause disease. Thus, although the risk of transmission of C. difficile exists in the home and community, the risk is likely quite low. 16,17 However, steps should be taken to minimize the risk of transmission in the home and institutions.

Prevention and control

Because C. difficile spores are not effectively killed by alcohol-based hand rubs, mechanical cleaning with soap and water is required to remove spores. C. difficile spores may contaminate the home and serve as a potential source of infection for family members and reinfection of the patient.

The use of routine practices should prevent the transmission of C. difficile within the home. Careful attention must be paid to hand-washing practices. 8 Clothes and linens should be washed as for the prevention of MRSA transmission.

Good personal hygiene is essential. The home, especially the bathroom, should be cleaned regularly with standard household cleaners. 16,17 Health care workers who provide care in the home should pay strict attention to hand hygiene when caring for patients infected or colonized with C. difficile. Gloves should be worn if there is a chance of soiling of the hands. 8

Conclusions

Hand hygiene, with soap and water or alcohol-based hand rubs, is the most important strategy for preventing transmission of antibacterial-resistant organisms in the home. It is neither realistic nor practical to expect people who are infected or colonized to be kept in isolation or that family members and health care providers wear personal protective equipment for direct or indirect contact.

Available recommendations for the prevention and control of infections 16–20 are clear, well-written and based on available reports. Hand hygiene and routine practices can serve as a basis to prevent the transmission of these pathogens between colonized or infected family members and other family members or health care providers. In the absence of specific recommendations, the basics of infection prevention and control (Box 1) can be used as templates to help prevent the transmission of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms in the home.

Family members and those who provide home health care for people infected or colonized with antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms should understand the chain of transmission of infection and should apply the measures outlined here to prevent transmission of these microorganisms in the home.

    Key points

  • Recommendations for the prevention of transmission of microorganisms in the hospital are not readily applicable to the home.

  • Hand hygiene, personal protective equipment and environmental cleaning are critical to breaking the chain of transmission in the home.

  • Hand washing with soap and water or an alcohol-based hand rub is the most important measure for preventing transmission.

  • The use of antibacterial hand soaps or antibacterial disinfecting solutions in the home is not supported by evidence.

Basic principles to prevent the acquisition and transmission of microorganisms in the home

  • Wash hands with soap and water or use an alcohol-based hand rub before and after contact with people who may be infected or colonized.

  • Wear gloves if there is a chance of soiling of hands and perform hand hygiene after removing the gloves.

  • If clothes become soiled, promptly remove and launder them.

  • Promptly dispose of all potentially infectious waste in a household waste receptacle.

  • Clean surfaces with a standard household cleaning solution that does not contain antibacterial agents.

Recommended reading

Articles to date in this series

  • Nicolle L, Conly JM, MacDonald N. Embracing ecology to limit antimicrobial resistance. CMAJ 2009;180:371–2.

  • Mulvey MR, Simor AE. Antimicrobial resistance in hospitals: How concerned should we be?CMAJ 2009;180:408–15.

  • Patrick DM, Hutchinson J. Antibiotic use and population ecology: How you can reduce your “resistance footprint.”CMAJ 2009;180:416–21.

  • Johnston LB, Bryce E. Hospital infection control strategies for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium difficile CMAJ 2009; 180:627–31.

  • Matlow AG. Control of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the office and clinic CMAJ 2009;180:1021–24.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared

    Contributors: Each of the authors contributed to the content of the article, revised it critically and approved the final version submitted for publication.

    This article has been peer reviewed.

    An abridged version of this article appeared in the May 26, 2009, issue of CMAJ.

    Acknowledgement: We thank Carolyn Garlinski, Health Sciences Centre, Infection Prevention and Control Unit, for her efforts in the preparation of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Isakbaeva ET, Bulens SN, Beard RS, et al. Norovirus and child care: challenges in outbreak control. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005;24:561–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Zafar U, Johnson LB, Hanna M, et al. Prevalence of nasal colonization among patients with community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection and their household contacts. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28: 966–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Menzies D, Gardam M. Tuberculosis control within Institutions. In: Long R, Ellis E, editors. Canadian tuberculosis standards. 6th ed. Ottawa (ON): Public Health Agency of Canada; 2007. p. 320–47. Available: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/tbpc-latb/pubs/pdf/tbstand07_e.pdf (accessed 2009 Apr. 21).
  4. 4.↵
    Johnston CP, Qiu H, Ticehurst JR, et al. Outbreak management and implications of a nosocomial norovirus outbreak. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:534–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Johnstone J, Majumdar SR, Fox JD, et al. Viral infection in adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: prevalence, pathogens and presentation. Chest 2008;134:1141–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Salgado CD, Farr BM, Hall KK, et al. Influenza in the acute hospital setting. Lancet Infect Dis 2002;2:145–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Pittet D, Allegranzi B, Sax H, et al. Evidence-based model for hand transmission during patient care and the role of improved practices. Lancet Infect Dis 2006; 6:641–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Infection control guidelines: routine practices and additional precautions for preventing the transmission of infection in healthcare. Can Commun Dis Rep 1999; 25S4;1–142. Available: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/99vol25/25s4/index.html (accessed 2009 Apr. 21).
  9. 9.
    Infection control guidelines: handwashing, cleaning, disinfection and sterilization in healthcare. Can Commun Dis Rep 1998;24S8:1–66. Available: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/98pdf/cdr24s8e.pdf (accessed 2009 Apr. 21).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Guidelines for hand hygiene in health-care settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51:1–44. Available: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5116A1.htm (accessed 2009 Apr.21).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Sandora TJ, Shih MC, Goldmann DA. Reducing absenteeism from gastrointestinal and respiratory illness in elementary school students: a randomized, controlled trial of an infection-control intervention. Pediatrics 2008;121:e1555–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Bloomfield SF. The changing hygiene climate: a review of infectious disease in the home and community (draft). Cheshire (UK): International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene; 2008. Available: www.ifh-homehygiene.org/IntegratedCRD.nsf/111e68ea0824afe1802575070003f039/29858AA006FAAA22802572970064B6E8/$File/hygieneclimate_review608_23july_4.doc (accessed 2009 Apr. 26).
  13. 13.↵
    Long R, Schwartzman K. Transmission and pathogenesis of tuberculosis. In: Long R, Ellis E, editors. Canadian tuberculosis standards. 6th ed. Ottawa (ON): Public Health Agency of Canada; 2007. p. 37–52. Available: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/tbpc-latb/pubs/pdf/tbstand07_e.pdf (accessed 2009 Feb. 5).
  14. 14.
    Jefferson T, Foxlee R, Del Mar C, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review. BMJ 2008;336:77–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Jefferson T, Foxlee R, Del Mar C, et al. Interventions for the interruption or reduction of spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Cyst Rev 2007;(4): CD006207.
  16. 16.↵
    International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene. Guidelines for prevention of infection and cross infection in the domestic environment. Cheshire (UK): The Forum. Available: www.ifh-homehygiene.org/IntegratedCRD.nsf/973efef75471defa8025754d00448025/92111AE38986BFBB802574DD003FC2C1/$File/IFH-Guidelines-complete.pdf (accessed 2009 Apr. 30).
  17. 17.↵
    International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Clostridium difficile and ESBL-producing Escherichia coli in the home and community: assessing the problem, controlling the spread. Cheshire (UK): The Forum; 2006. Available: www.ifh-homehygiene.org/2003/2library/MRSA_expert_report.pdf (accessed 2009 Apr. 21).
  18. 18.↵
    International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene. Hand hygiene in the home and community: an IFH briefing document for health professionals July 2007. Cheshire (UK): The Forum; 2007. Available: www.streams.net/resources/uploaded/HH/Hand_Hygiene_in_Home_and_Community.pdf (accessed 2009 Apr. 30).
  19. 19.
    International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene. Recommendations for selection of suitable hygiene procedures for use in the domestic environment. Milano (Italy): Intramed Communications; 2001. Available: www.ifh-homehygiene.org/2003/2public/IFHrecomends.pdf (accessed 2009 Apr. 21).
  20. 20.↵
    Bloomfield S. Norovirus infection in the home and the role of hygiene. Cheshire (UK): International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene; 2008. Available: www.ifh-homehygiene.org/2003/2library/norovirus-review_0901.doc (accessed 2009 Apr. 21).
  21. 21.↵
    Lu PL, Tsai JC, Chiu YW, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage, infection and transmission in dialysis patients, healthcare workers and their family members. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:1659–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Johansson PJ, Gustafsson EB, Ringberg H. High prevalence of MRSA in household contacts. Scand J Infect Dis 2007;39:764–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Huijsdens XW, van Santen-Verheuvel MG, Spalburg E, et al. Multiple cases of familial transmission of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:2994–6.
  24. 24.
    Al-Tawfiq JA. Father-to-infant transmission of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:636–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Thornton AC, Jennings-Conklin KS, McCormick MI. Noroviruses: agents in outbreaks of acute gastroenteritis. Disaster Manag Response 2004;2:4–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.
    Fretz R, Svoboda P, Schorr D, et al. Risk factors for infections with norovirus gastrointestinal illness in Switzerland. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2005;24: 256–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Morrison J, Pai M, Hopewell PC. Tuberculosis and latent tuberculosis infection in close contacts of people with pulmonary tuberculosis in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2008; 8:359–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Lin X, Chongsuvivatwong V, Lin L, et al. Dose-response relationship between treatment delay of smear-positive tuberculosis patients and intra-household transmission: a cross-sectional study. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2008;102: 797–804.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    Albrich WC, Harbarth S. Health-care workers: Source, vector, or victim of MRSA?Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:289–301.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Stout A, Ritchie K, Macpherson K. Clinical effectiveness of alcohol-based products in increasing hand hygiene compliance and reducing infection rates: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2007;66:308–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.
    Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infection Control Programme. Lancet 2000;356:1307–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.
    Fendler EJ, Ali Y, Hammond BS, et al. The impact of alcohol hand sanitizer use on infection rates in an extended care facility. Am J Infect Control 2002;30: 226–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.
    Hilburn J, Hammond BS, Fendler EJ, et al. Use of alcohol hand sanitizer as an infection control strategy in an acute care facility. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:109–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.
    Pittet D, Sax H, Hugonnet S, et al. Cost Implications of successful hand hygiene promotion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:264–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    McLeod JA, Embil JM. Hand hygiene: cleaning up our act!Can J CME 2002;2: 177–86.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Fischler GE, Fuls JL, Dail EW, et al. Effect of hand wash agents on controlling the transmission of pathogenic bacteria from hands to food. J Food Prot 2007;70: 2873–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Fuls JL, Rodgers ND, Fischler GE, et al. Alternative hand contamination technique to compare the activities of antimicrobial and nonantimicrobial soaps under different test conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008;74:3739–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    Aiello AE, Larson EL, Levy SB. Consumer antibacterial soaps: Effective or just risky?Clin Infect Dis 2007;45(Suppl 2):S137–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Aiello AE, Coulborn RM, Perez V, et al. Effect of hand hygiene on infectious disease risk in the community setting: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 2008;98: 1372–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Aiello AE, Marshall B, Levy SB, et al. Antibacterial cleaning products and drug resistance. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11:1565–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Bloomfield SF. Significance of biocide usage and antimicrobial resistance in domiciliary environments. J Appl Microbiol 2002;92(Suppl):144S–57S.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Bloomfield SF, Aiello AE, Cookson B, et al. The effectiveness of hand hygiene procedures in reducing the risks of infections in home and community settings including hand washing and alcohol based hand sanitizers. Am J Infect Control 2007;35(Suppl 1):S27–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    Embil J, Ramotar K, Romance L, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in tertiary care institutions on the Canadian Prairies 1990–1992. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:646–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. 44.
    Dammann TA, Wiens RM, Taylor GD. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: identification of a community outbreak by monitoring of hospital isolates. Can J Public Health 1988;79:312–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    Taylor G, Kirkland T, Kowalewska-Grochowska K, et al. A multi-strain cluster of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus based in a native community. Can J Infect Dis 1990;1:121–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    Kowalski TJ, Berbari EF, Osmon DR. Epidemiology, treatment and prevention of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Mayo Clin Proc 2005;80:1201–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.
    Diep BA, Chambers HF, Graber CJ, et al. Emergence of multi drug-resistant, community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clone USA300 in men who have sex with men. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:249–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Kazakova SV, Hageman JC, Matava M, et al. A clone of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among professional football players. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:468–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.
    Zinderman CE, Conner B, Malakooti MA, et al. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among military recruits. Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10:941–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.
    Lindenmayer JM, Schoenfeld S, O’Grady R, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylo-coccus aureus in a high school wrestling team and the surrounding community. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:895–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.
    Gorak EJ, Yamada SM, Brown JD. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospitalized adults and children without known risk factors. Clin Infect Dis 1999;29:797–800.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    Groom AV, Wolsey DH, Naimi TS, et al. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a rural American Indian community. JAMA 2001; 286:1201–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    Scott E, Duty S, Callahan M. A pilot study to isolate Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus from environmental surfaces in the home. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:458–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.
    Weese JS, Dick H, Willey BM, et al. Suspected transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus between domestic pets and humans in veterinary clinics and in the household. Vet Microbiol 2006;115:148–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.
    Duquette RA, Nuttall TJ. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in dogs and cats: An emerging problem?J Small Anim Pract 2004;45:591–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    Guardabassi L, Schwarz S, Lloyd DH. Pet animals as reservoirs of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;54:321–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    Barton-Forbes M, Hawkes M, Moore D, et al. Guidelines for the prevention and management of community associated methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA): a perspective for Canadian healthcare practitioners. Can J Infect Dis and Med Microbiol 2006;17(Suppl C):1B–24B.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s petscription. Atlanta (GA): The Centers. Available: www.cdc.gov/HEALTHYPETS/petscription_gen.htm (accessed 2009 Apr. 21).
  59. 59.↵
    Duckro AN, Blom DW, Lyle EA, et al. Transfer of vancomycin-resistant enterococci via health care worker hands. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:302–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.
    Tenorio AR, Badri SM, Sahgal NB, et al. Effectiveness of gloves in prevention of hand carriage of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus species by healthcare workers after patient care. Clin Infect Dis 2001;32:826–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    Hayden MK, Blom DW, Lyle EA, et al. Risk of hand or glove contamination after contact with patients colonized with vancomycin-resistant enterococcus or the colonized patients’ environment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29: 149–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.
    Porwancher R, Sheth A, Remphrey S, et al. Epidemiological study of hospital-acquired infection with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium: possible transmission by an electronic ear-probed thermometer. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:771–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. 63.
    Bonten MJ, Hayden MK, Nathan C, et al. Epidemiology of colonisation of patients and environment with vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Lancet 1996;348: 1615–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.
    Noskin GA, Stosor V, Cooper I, et al. Recovery of vancomycin-resistant enterococci on fingertips and environmental surfaces. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:577–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.
    Livornese LL Jr, Dias S, Samel C, et al. Hospital-acquired infection with van-comycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium transmitted by electronic thermometers. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:112–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.
    Noble MA, Isaac-Renton JL, Bryce EA, et al. The toilet as a transmission vector of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. J Hosp Infect 1998;40:237–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    Martinez JA, Ruthazer R, Hansjosten K, et al. Role of environmental contamination as a risk factor for acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci for patients treated in a medical intensive care unit. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1905–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    Ofner-Agostini M, Johnston BL, Simor AE, et al. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci in Canada: results from the Canadian nosocomial infection surveillance program, 1999–2005. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:271–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    Loo VG, Libman MD, Miller MA, et al. Clostridium difficile: a formidable foe. CMAJ 2004;171:47–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  70. 70.↵
    Perry C, Marshall R, Jones E. Bacterial contamination of uniforms. J Hosp Infect 2001;48:238–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    Riggs MM, Sethi AK, Zabarsky TF, et al. Asymptomatic carriers are a potential source for transmission of epidemic and nonepidemic Clostridium difficile strains among long-term care facility residents. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:992–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. 72.↵
    Samore MH, Venkataraman L, DeGirolami PC, et al. Clinical and molecular epidemiology of sporadic and clustered cases of nosocomial Clostridium difficile diarrhea. Am J Med 1996;100:32–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    Lefebvre SL, Waltner-Toews D, Peregrine AS, et al. Prevalence of zoonotic agents in dogs visiting hospitalized people in Ontario: implications for infection control. J Hosp Infect 2006;62:458–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    Borriello SP, Honour P, Tuner T, et al. Household pets as a potential reservoir for Clostridium difficile Infection. J Clin Pathol 1983;36:84–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 180 (11)
CMAJ
Vol. 180, Issue 11
26 May 2009

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Prevention and control of infections in the home
John M. Embil, Brenda Dyck, Pierre Plourde
CMAJ May 2009, 180 (11) E82-E86; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.071898
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Collections

 

View Latest Classified Ads