Widespread Screening No More Effective Than No Screening at Preventing Hospital-Acquired MRSA, JAMA Study Says

Widespread screening for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, does not reduce the rate of hospital-acquired infections and is not cost effective, according to a study published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Chicago Tribune reports (Graham, Chicago Tribune, 3/12). Epidemiologist Stephan Harbarth and colleagues at the University of Geneva Hospitals in Switzerland studied MRSA infection rates among 21,754 patients treated in a dozen surgical wards.

Screening patients upon admission found 515 patients with MRSA, including 337 who would have been missed, according to the study (O'Brien, Baltimore Sun, 3/12). Patients who tested positive for MRSA were placed in isolation, scrubbed with disinfectants and given antibiotics (Chicago Tribune, 3/12). However, researchers found that 93 patients developed MRSA while in wards that conducted screenings, compared with 76 patients in non-screened wards. Harbarth recommended screening only in high-risk hospital units, including intensive care, critical care and cardiovascular surgery units (Baltimore Sun, 3/12).

According to the Tribune, lawmakers in several states are considering mandates for hospitals to screen patients for MRSA and report infection rates. However, based on the study's results, "legislative mandates for MRSA screening are probably not appropriate," Robert Weinstein, chief of infection control at Stroger Hospital, said (Chicago Tribune, 3/12). Critics of the study said the length and scope of the study were too limited, the Sun reports (Baltimore Sun, 3/12).