Open AccessPoint-Counterpoint: To Screen or Not To Screen for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcusaureus
Author(s) -
Lance R. Peterson,
Daniel J. Diekema
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of clinical microbiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.349
H-Index - 255
eISSN - 1070-633X
pISSN - 0095-1137
DOI - 10.1128/jcm.02516-09
Subject(s) - counterpoint , psychological intervention , medicine , transmission (telecommunications) , methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus , infection control , health care , family medicine , staphylococcus aureus , pathology , nursing , sociology , political science , biology , law , computer science , telecommunications , pedagogy , bacteria , genetics
There are few more compelling questions in clinical microbiology today than the issue ofwhether or not to screen for the presence of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcusaureus (MRSA), with the results being used to institute infection controlinterventions aimed at preventing transmission of MRSA in health care environments.Numerous different matters must be addressed when considering a screening program. Who isto be screened, what method is to be employed to detect MRSA, and what sites should besampled? When and how often should the screening be performed? Who is going to pay for thescreening, and, finally and perhaps most importantly, how are screening results to becommunicated to health care providers and what kind of interventions are best undertakenbased on the results? Numerous governmental agencies have mandated MRSA screeningprograms, and yet several authorities in infection control organizations have questionedthe appropriateness of mandated screening. In this Point-Counterpoint feature, Dr. Lance Peterson of Evanston Hospital (Evanston, IL) offers his perspective on why screening for MRSA is to be encouraged. Dr. Daniel Diekema of the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine (Iowa City, IA) offers an opposing view.