USA Today: Hospitals resist effective staph screening

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-24-staph-infections_N.htm?csp=34

By Lindsey Tanner, Associated Press
CHICAGO — Testing all new hospital patients for a dangerous staph "superbug" could help wipe out a germ that likely kills more Americans than AIDS, consumer advocates say and early evidence suggests.

Yet few U.S. hospitals do it, and many fight efforts to require it. Jeanine Thomas, who nearly died from the drug-resistant staph bug, says the reason is simple: "Doctors don't want to be told what to do."

The Chicago suburbanite's personal crusade led Illinois this year to become the first state to order testing of all high-risk hospital patients and isolation of those who carry the staph germ called MRSA.


This scanning electron micrograph depicts a grouping of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria.


Powerful doctor groups fought against it. The testing and isolation of patients would be too costly, they said. Many other germs plague hospitals that also require attention. Experts said a more proven approach would focus on better hand washing by hospital staff — a simple measure tough to enforce.

Yet, Thomas prevailed. Similar measures passed this year in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. And Thomas' national crusade to make hospitals test for MRSA and report their infection rates gained steam last week after a Virginia teenager's death from the germ and a government report estimated it causes dangerous infections that sicken more than 90,000 Americans each year and kill nearly 19,000.

Suddenly the little-known germ with the cumbersome name, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, is getting lots of attention.

FULL story at link.

- sign posted in biology lab, circa 1970.

Why MRSA's in the news all of a sudden, I don't know. Hep C in prisons is terrible, pertussis is going through again, and there are all sorts of other things.

To be sure, there are rare exceptions.

Most of the doctors Hubby trained with are good people. There are a couple attendings I'd like to lose their licenses, and I have had a couple of bad docs in my time, but most the people I know are stand-up good doctors who really care about their patients.

I know Hubby assumes the worst for his patients, and even he doesn't test them all for MRSA. Chances are, he's got it since he's in two hospitals rounding every day and in the office seeing sick people. Doctors and nurses are carriers, usually, so that's why washing hands works better than testing every patient. Families of doctors and nurses are carriers because of living with them (and while we wash our hands obsessively in our house, we still pass stuff on to each other), and just take it out from there.

It's a nasty bug, that's for sure, but running all those costly tests doesn't make as much sense as assuming every patient has it, checking everyone over really well, and then washing hands really well before and after touching each patient.

the first thing they ask...any open wounds or sores. So we can test. Mayb e it is just the hospital.

Of course, they also assume I have it because Hubby's an internist and has been exposed on several occasions.

It's gotten so bad that in some hospitals they hold Staph meetings.

;-)

that they cannot even be bothered to wash their hands.

http://women.webmd.com/news/20040706/study-doctors-dont-wash-hands-enough

Now these low standards are threatening the health of the general public.

And people wonder why the medical industry is one of America's deadliest industries.

No one is allowed to touch me without washing their hands when I'm in a medical setting. They have to wash them in front of me, too. Anything else creeps me out.

(a family member) need to remind any hospital personnel coming into the room and touching the patient to wash up first.

I *love* my kids' pediatrician. He always washes up before touching my kids, even for a well-child exam.