Skip to main content

Active Screening in High-Risk Units Is an Effective and Cost-Avoidant Method to Reduce the Rate of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infection in the Hospital

  • Megan Clancy (a1) (a2), Amy Graepler (a3), Michael Wilson (a3) (a4), Ivor Douglas (a5) (a6), Jeff Johnson (a7) (a7) and Connie Savor Price (a1) (a2)...

To evaluate the impact of active screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on MRSA infection rates and cost avoidance in units where the risk of MRSA transmission is high.


During a 15-month period, all patients admitted to our adult medical and surgical intensive care units (ICUs) were screened for MRSA nasal carriage on admission and weekly thereafter. The overall rates of all MRSA infections and of nosocomial MRSA infection in the 2 adult ICUs and the general wards were compared with rates during the 15-month period prior to the start of routine screening. The percentage of patients colonized or infected with MRSA on admission and the cost avoidance of the surveillance program were also assessed.


The overall rate of MRSA infections for all 3 areas combined decreased from 6.1 infections per 1,000 census-days in the preintervention period to 4.1 infections per 1,000 census-days in the postintervention period (P = .01). The decrease remained statistically significant when only nosocomial MRSA infections were examined (4.5 vs 2.8 infections per 1,000 census-days; P<.01), despite a corresponding increase during the postintervention period in the percentage of patients with onset of MRSA infection in the first 72 hours after admission to the general wards (46% to 81%; P<.005). A total of 3.7% of ICU patients were colonized or infected with MRSA on admission; MRSA would not have been detected in 91% of these patients if screening had not been performed. At a cost of $3,475/month for the program, we averted a mean of 2.5 MRSA infections/month for the ICUs combined, avoiding $19,714/month in excess cost in the ICUs.


Even in a setting of increasing community-associated MRSA, active MRSA screening as part of a multi-factorial intervention targeted to high-risk units may be an effective and cost-avoidant strategy for achieving a sustained decrease of MRSA infections throughout the hospital.

Corresponding author
660 Bannock MC-4000, Denver, CO 80204, (
Hide All
1. Tiemersma EW, Bronzwaer SL, Lyytikainen O, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Europe, 1999-2002. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;10:16271634.
2. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:470485.
3. Wertheim HF, Vos MC, Boelens HA, et al. Low prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at hospital admission in The Netherlands: the value of search and destroy and restrictive antibiotic use. J Hosp Infect 2004;56:321325.
4. Rosdahl VT, Knudsen AM. The decline of methicillin resistance among Danish Staphylococcus aureus strains. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991; 12:8388.
5. Muto CA, Jernigan JA, Ostrowsky BE, et al. SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and enterococcus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24: 362386.
6. Farrington M, Redpath C, Trundle C, Coomber S, Brown NM. Winning the battle but losing the war: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection at a teaching hospital. QJM 1998;91:539548.
7. Gonzalez C, Rubio M, Romero-Vivas J, Gonzalez M, Picazo JJ. Bacteremic pneumonia due to Staphylococcus aureus: a comparison of disease caused by methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible organisms. Clin Infect Dis 1999;29:11711177.
8. Harbarth S, Rutschmann O, Sudre P, Pittet D. Impact of methicillin resistance on the outcome of patients with bacteremia caused by Staphylococcus aureus . Arch Intern Med 1998;158:182189.
9. Soriano A, Martinez JA, Mensa J, et al. Pathogenic significance of methicillin resistance for patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:368373.
10. Nijssen S, Bonten MJ, Weinstein RA. Are active microbiological surveillance and subsequent isolation needed to prevent the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:405409.
11. Cepeda JA, Whitehouse T, Cooper B, et al. Isolation of patients in single rooms or cohorts to reduce spread of MRSA in intensive-care units: prospective two-centre study. Lancet 2005;365:295304.
12. Buckingham SC, McDougal LK, Cathey LD, et al. Emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a Memphis, Tennessee Children's Hospital. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2004;23:619624.
13. Tenover FC, Arbeit RD, Goering RV, et al. Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing. J Clin Microbiol 1995;33:22332239.
14. Puzniak LA, Gillespie KN, Leet T, Kollef M, Mundy LM. A cost-benefit analysis of gown use in controlling vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus transmission: is it worth the price? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:418424.
15. Abramson MA, Sexton DJ. Nosocomial methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus primary bacteremia: at what costs? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:408411.
16. Engemann JJ, Carmeli Y, Cosgrove SE, et al. Adverse clinical and economic outcomes attributable to methicillin resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:592598.
17. Chaix C, Durand-Zaleski I, Alberti C, Brun-Buisson C. Control of endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a cost-benefit analysis in an intensive care unit. JAMA 1999;282:17451751.
18. Boyce JM, Potter-Bynoe G, Chenevert C, King T. Environmental contamination due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: possible infection control implications. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:622627.
19. Zachary KC, Bayne PS, Morrison VJ, Ford DS, Silver LC, Hooper DC. Contamination of gowns, gloves, and stethoscopes with vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:560564.
20. Nicolle LE, Dyck B, Thompson G, et al. Regional dissemination and control of epidemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Manitoba Chapter of CHICA-Canada. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:202205.
21. Tomic V, Svetina Sorli P, Trinkaus D, Sorli J, Widmer AF, Trampuz A. Comprehensive strategy to prevent nosocomial spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a highly endemic setting. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:20382043.
22. Girou E, Pujade G, Legrand P, Cizeau F, Brun-Buisson C. Selective screening of carriers for control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in high-risk hospital areas with a high level of endemic MRSA. Clin Infect Dis 1998;27:543550.
23. Jernigan JA, Clemence MA, Stott GA, et al. Control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a university hospital: one decade later. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:686696.
24. Kirkland KB, Weinstein JM. Adverse effects of contact isolation. Lancet 1999;354:11771178.
25. Stelfox HT, Bates DW, Redelmeier DA. Safety of patients isolated for infection control. JAMA 2003;290:18991905.
26. Dettenkofer M, Seegers S, Antes G, Motschall E, Schumacher M, Daschner FD. Does the architecture of hospital facilities influence nosocomial infection rates? A systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25:2125.
27. Huebner J, Frank U, Kappstein I, et al. Influence of architectural design on nosocomial infections in intensive care units—a prospective 2-year analysis. Intensive Care Med 1989;15:179183.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
  • ISSN: 0899-823X
  • EISSN: 1559-6834
  • URL: /core/journals/infection-control-and-hospital-epidemiology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 6 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 213 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.