A survey of infections in United Kingdom laboratories, 1994-1995

Citation
D. Walker et D. Campbell, A survey of infections in United Kingdom laboratories, 1994-1995, J CLIN PATH, 52(6), 1999, pp. 415-418
Citations number
2
Categorie Soggetti
Research/Laboratory Medicine & Medical Tecnology","Medical Research Diagnosis & Treatment
Journal title
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
ISSN journal
00219746 → ACNP
Volume
52
Issue
6
Year of publication
1999
Pages
415 - 418
Database
ISI
SICI code
0021-9746(199906)52:6<415:ASOIIU>2.0.ZU;2-I
Abstract
Aims-To identify the number and type of infections occurring in United King dom clinical laboratories during 1994 and 1995, following similar surveys c overing 1970 to 1989. Methods-A retrospective questionnaire survey was undertaken of 397 respondi ng UK clinical laboratories covering 1994 and 1995. A follow up telephone s urvey was undertaken with each of the laboratories from which a questionnai re had been received indicating a possible or probable laboratory acquired infection during 1994 or 1995. Results-Questionnaires were sent to 659 laboratories or organisations which were thought to have laboratories, of which 557 responded (response rate o f 84.5%). Of these, only 397 were from organisations with laboratories. Ove r 55 000 person-years of occupational exposure were covered, and only nine cases identified, giving an infection incidence rate overall of 16,2/100 00 0 person-years, compared with 82.7 infections/100 000 person-years found in a similar survey covering 1988 and 1989, reported previously. Infections w ere commonest in females, in relatively young staff, in microbiology labora tory workers, and in scientific/technical employees. Gastrointestinal infec tions predominated, particularly shigellosis, but few specific aetiological factors relating to working practices were identified. No hepatitis B case s were reported. Conclusions-The small number of cases identified indicates high standards o f infection control, though there is still room for improvement. Periodic s tudies of this kind are not adequate for comprehensive monitoring of the in cidence of laboratory acquired infections. That will require the introducti on of a routine, active surveillance programme or prospective survey which has the support and commitment of the laboratories themselves.