4.5 Article

A prospective survey of air and surface fungal contamination in a medical mycology laboratory at a tertiary care university hospital

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 189-194

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.06.009

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hospital Program of Clinical Research 2004 [PHRC 2004]
  2. Delegation of the clinical research of Bourgogne, Dijon, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Invasive filamentous fungi infections resulting from inhalation of mold conidia pose a major threat in immunocompromised patients. The diagnosis is based on direct smears, cultural symptoms. and culturing fungi. Airborne conidia present in the laboratory environment may cause contamination of cultures, resulting in false-positive diagnosis. Baseline values of fungal contamination in a clinical mycology laboratory have not been determined to date. Methods: A 1-year prospective survey of air and surface contamination was conducted in a clinical mycology laboratory during a period when large construction projects were being conducted in the hospital. Air was sampled with a portable air system impactor, and surfaces were sampled with contact Sabouraud agar plates. The collected data allowed the elaboration of Shewhart graphic charts. Results: Mean fungal loads ranged from 2.27 to 4.36 colony forming units (cfu)m(3) in air and from 0.61 to 1.69 cfu/plate on surfaces. Conclusions: Strict control procedures may limit the level of fungal contamination in a clinical mycology laboratory even in the context of large construction projects at the hospital site. Our data and the resulting Shewhart graphic charts provide baseline values to use when monitoring for inappropriate variations of the fungal contamination in a mycology laboratory as part of a quality assurance program. This is critical to the appropriate management of the fungal risk in hematology, cancer and transplantation patients. Copyright (c) 2009 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据