Bacterial contamination of computers and telephones in a university hospital in Turkey

Çiragil, Pınar; Gul, Muhammad; Aral, Mustafa M.

doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2005.08.008

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these, 174 were selected for full-text review, of which 99 did not meet our criteria and were excluded, leaving a total of 75 studies in the final analysis (figure 1). 16–90…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of studies (50) reported primarily on device contamination rates (mostly using cross-sectional samples) 17–23 26 29 32–36 38 41–46 49 50 52–56 60 62 64–66 68–76 81–86 90. Another 25 studies used interventional designs16 24 25 27 28 30 31 37 39 40 47 48 57–59 61 63 67 77–80 87–89; most reported contamination rates before and after a disinfection or cleaning process (and therefore also contributed data on baseline contamination rates).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What’s on your keyboard? A systematic review of the contamination of peripheral computer devices in healthcare settings

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo determine the extent and type of microbial contamination of computer peripheral devices used in healthcare settings, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce contamination of these devices and establish the risk of patient and healthcare worker infection from contaminated devices.DesignSystematic reviewMethodsWe searched four online databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and Scopus for articles reporting primary data collection on contamination of computer-related equipment (including keyboards, mice, laptops and tablets) and/or studies demonstrating the effectiveness of a disinfection technique. Pooling of contamination rates was conducted where possible, and narrative synthesis was used to describe the rates of device contamination, types of bacterial and viral contamination, effectiveness of interventions and any associations between device contamination and human infections.ResultsOf the 4432 records identified, a total of 75 studies involving 2804 computer devices were included. Of these, 50 studies reported contamination of computer-related hardware, and 25 also measured the effects of a decontamination intervention. The overall proportion of contamination ranged from 24% to 100%. The most common microbial contaminants were skin commensals, but also included potential pathogens including methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus,Clostridiumdifficile, vancomycin-resistantenterococci andEscherichia coli. Interventions demonstrating effective decontamination included wipes/pads using isopropyl alcohol, quaternary ammonium, chlorhexidine or dipotassium peroxodisulfate, ultraviolet light emitting devices, enhanced cleaning protocols and chlorine/bleach products. However, results were inconsistent, and there was insufficient data to demonstrate comparative effectiveness. We found little evidence on the link between device contamination and patient/healthcare worker colonisation or infection.ConclusionsComputer keyboards and peripheral devices are frequently contaminated; however, our findings do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about their relative impact on the transmission of pathogens or nosocomial infection. Additional studies measuring the incidence of healthcare-acquired infections from computer hardware, the relative risk they pose to healthcare and evidence for effective and practical cleaning methods are needed.

show abstract

“…Of these, 174 were selected for full-text review, of which 99 did not meet our criteria and were excluded, leaving a total of 75 studies in the final analysis (figure 1). 16–90…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s on your keyboard? A systematic review of the contamination of peripheral computer devices in healthcare settings

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other investigators reported that telephones, intercoms, dictaphones and bedpan flusher handles may be contaminated with potentially pathogenic bacteria [2,8,18,24,25] . Schultz et al [7] reported that 95% of cultures from computer keyboards were positive for skin flora, and 5% were positive for pathogens known to be associated with nosocomial pathogens.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacterial Contamination and Resistance to Commonly Used Antimicrobials of Healthcare Workers' Mobile Phones in Teaching Hospitals, Kerman, Iran

Sepehri¹

2009

American Journal of Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem Statement:The contamination rates of Health Care Worker's (HCW) mobile phones and resistance to commonly used antimicrobials were evaluated in three teaching hospitals in Kerman, Iran. So, we examined 150 randomly selected HCWs in three teaching hospitals in Kerman, Iran, 2007. For each HCW a sterile swab moistened with sterile water was rotated over the surface of both sides of his/her phone, a second swab for the sampling of the dominant hand. Both swabs were cultured by the routine methodology in use at laboratory. Plates were incubated aerobically at 37°C for 48 h. Approach: All samples were examined for the antimicrobial activity for commonly used antimicrobials using disc diffusion method. Results: A total of 48 (32.0%, CI95 24.6-40.1%) mobile phones and 59 (39.3%, CI95 31.5-47.6%) of dominant hands had bacterial contamination and Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most commonly cultured organisms from all sites. The resistance rates to commonly used antimicrobials in isolated bacteria from phones and dominant hand varied from 6.7% for cephalothin to 25% for amoxicillin, respectively. Conclusions/Recommendations: The kind of isolated microorganisms and their susceptibility to commonly used antimicrobials from dominant hands were almost similar with those from phones (p<0.05). In conclusion, the results indicated that the rate of bacterial contamination of the HCW's phone is just below 50%, accompanying with a resistance rate to the common used antibiotics in one fourth of all the cases. Therefore, mobile phones could be an important source of nosocomial infections and the spread of bacterial resistance bacteria in medical healthcare settings.

show abstract

“…Studies have shown contamination of common hospital surfaces such as room door handles, 6 sterile packaging, 8 mops, 9 ward fabrics and plastics, 10 healthcare workers' pens, 11 keyboards and taps, 12 stethoscopes 13 and telephones 14 by potentially harmful microbes. In addition to this, there is mounting indirect evidence of a link between contaminated surfaces and nosocomial infection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antimicrobial surfaces and their potential in reducing the role of the inanimate environment in the incidence of hospital-acquired infections

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bacterial contamination of computers and telephones in a university hospital in Turkey

Cited by 12 publications

References 7 publications

What’s on your keyboard? A systematic review of the contamination of peripheral computer devices in healthcare settings

What’s on your keyboard? A systematic review of the contamination of peripheral computer devices in healthcare settings

Bacterial Contamination and Resistance to Commonly Used Antimicrobials of Healthcare Workers' Mobile Phones in Teaching Hospitals, Kerman, Iran

Antimicrobial surfaces and their potential in reducing the role of the inanimate environment in the incidence of hospital-acquired infections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About