Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by CZARLINSKY, D. K.
Right arrow Articles by HARRIS, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by CZARLINSKY, D. K.
Right arrow Articles by HARRIS, D. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 109, No. 2: 218-225
Copyright © 1979 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health


other

STAPHYLOCOCCAL COLONIZATION IN A NEWBORN NURSERY, 1971–19761

DONNA K. CZARLINSKY, ROBERT T. HALL2, WILLIAM G. BARNES3, DAVID C. JENKINS, PHILIP G. RHODES and DAVID J. HARRIS

3Currently VA Hospital Kansas City, MO University of Kansas Medical Center Kansas City, KS

2 Reprint requests to Dr. Hall, Children's Mercy Hospital, 24th and Gillham Road, Kansas City, MO 64108.

Rates of colonization by Staphylococcus aureus were determined for 9515 infants admitted to the nursery of a general hospital during a six-year period (1971–1976). The mean colonization rate from 1971 through 1974 was 14%. Analysis of variance of data for this time period revealed no significant change in colonization rates following discontinuation of hexa-chlorophene bathing of infants in January 1972. Also, there were no consistent phage types present nor changes in the number of phage typable staphylococci during this period (1971–1974). During 1975 and 1976, S. aureus phage type 95 became endemic and accounted for 74% of colonization due to S. aureus. This was accompanied by a significant Increase in colonization rates in 1975 and 1976 (29% and 25%, respectively). Anterior nares cultures of the mothers and of the nursing personnel, umbilical cord cultures of the infants at the time of admission, and of the bath water following admission bathing, and of fomites within the nursery excluded these potential reservoirs as the cause of the high colonization rates. The primary reservoir of staphylococci was apparently the infants themselves and the postulated method of spread was hand carriage from infant to infant. The origin of the organism in the infant population was not determined. Either triple dye or bacitracin ointment applied to the umbilical cords of the infants was effective in reducing colonization rates during this period of endemic spread.

infant; newborn; Staphylococcus aureus; staphylococcal phages


1 From The Harry S. Truman Medical Center, University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Medicine


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
K. J. Center, A. C. Reboli, R. Hubler, G. L. Rodgers, and S. S. Long
Decreased Vancomycin Susceptibility of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Evidence of Spread of Staphylococcus warneri
J. Clin. Microbiol., October 1, 2003; 41(10): 4660 - 4665.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
D. R. Reagan, B. N. Doebbeling, M. A. Pfaller, C. T. Sheetz, A. K. Houston, R. J. Hollis, and R. P. Wenzel
Elimination of Coincident Staphylococcus aureus Nasal and Hand Carriage with Intranasal Application of Mupirocin Calcium Ointment
Ann Intern Med, January 15, 1991; 114(2): 101 - 106.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
CLIN PEDIATRHome page
M. P. Andrich and S. M. Golden
Umbilical Cord Care: A Study of Bacitracin Ointment vs. Triple Dye
Clinical Pediatrics, June 1, 1984; 23(6): 342 - 344.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.