4.2 Article

Contamination rates between smart cell phones and non-smart cell phones of healthcare workers

Journal

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages 144-147

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jhm.2011

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Seoul National University College of Medicine Research Fund (Seoul, South Korea) [04-2011-1020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Healthcare workers' mobile phones are easily contaminated with pathogenic bacteria and could be vehicles of transmission. Smart phones are increasingly used in the hospital. The objective of this study was to compare the contamination rate of bacteria with pathogenic potential between smart phones and non-smart phones. METHODS We screened mobile phones of healthcare workers in three teaching hospitals in South Korea. The identification of cultivated micro-organisms and assessment of antibiotic susceptibility were performed. RESULTS One hundred fifteen (56.7%) participants used smart phones, and 88 (43.3%) used non-smart phones. Bacteria with pathogenic potential were isolated from 58 (28.6%) mobile phones, more often from smart phones than from non-smart phones (34.8% vs 20.5%, P=0.03). Multivariate analysis including various characteristics to determine risk factors revealed that only smart phones (vs non-smart phones) were a significant risk factor for contamination by bacteria with pathogenic potential (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-11.31). Also, in a multivariate model including phone size, the smart phone was still a significant risk factor for the pathogen contamination (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 1.07-16.33; P=0.04). CONCLUSION The smart phones of healthcare workers were contaminated with bacteria with pathogenic potential to a greater extent than were non-smart phones. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2013;8:144147. (c) 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available