Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus Carriage among the Health Care Workers in a Tertiary Care Hospital
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Malini J. MBBD, MD
Assistant Professor, Dept of Microbiology
ESIC-MC-PGIMSR, Rajajinagar.
Bangalore-560010
Phone: 09448847852
E-mail: drsha13@hotmail.com
Background:
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial infection outbreaks and prevalence among various populations have been well reported in the literature, particularly with respect to the developed and the developing countries. The hospital personnel tend to have higher colonization of MRSA than the general population. The personnel with MRSA colonization are the sources of dissemination of the organisms, both in the hospital and the community.
Aim:
The present study was conducted to assess the carriage rate of MRSA among health care workers (HCWs).
Design:
A hospital based prospective study.
Place and Duration:
Department of Microbiology, ESIC-MC-PGIMSR, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, from October 2010 to April 2011.
Materials and Methods:
A total of 150 HCWs who were involved in the management of critically ill patients [in the intensive care unit (adult), all surgical specialties, post-operative surgical wards, major OT and minor OT] were screened for MRSA by collecting their nasal swabs, throat swabs and swabs from the webs of their fingers. Staphylococcus aureus was identified by the standard methods. Antibiotic susceptibility was performed according to the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method. MRSA was identified by using a cefoxitin 30 mcg disc and it was interpreted according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. All the carriers which were identified were decolonized with Mupirocin (Supirocin ointment 2% Glen mark), local application twice a day for ten days, and subsequently, they were checked for the decolonized state.
Statistical analysis:
The findings were statistically analyzed by using the Chi-square test.
Results:
Of the 150 HCWs who were screened, 15 (10%) had MRSA either in the nose or on the hand. The nasal carriage of MRSA was higher (8%) than the hand carriage (2%) and none had throat carriage as compared to the Methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus carriage rate in the nose and on the hand 3.4% and 0.6% respectively, which was statistically significant (p< 0.05). Doctors, nurses and nursing orderlies were the predominant carriers (4%, 2%, and 2%, respectively). The antibiogram of the MRSA isolates revealed the highest resistance to penicillin and amoxyclav (93% each). The sensitivity to erythromycin, gentamicin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin and cotrimoxazole was variable (53%-73%). All the MRSA isolates were sensitive to vancomycin. Thirteen (86.6 %) carriers were successfully decolonized with the local application of Mupirocin. However, two of the carriers did not take part in the further studies.
Conclusion:
The MRSA carriage rate among the HCWs in our hospital was high, particularly among the doctors and nurses. Screening and decolonization may be effective in decreasing the MRSA carriage rate among the HCWs. Standard infection control precautions should be employed in the professional practice to minimize either the carriage or the transmission rate.
Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, Health-care workers, Colonization and decolonization
Introduction
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become endemic worldwide within the past two decades. There are both the hospital acquired MRSA and the community acquired MRSA strains and infections (1). Asymptomatically colonized patients and health care workers (HCW) are the major sources of MRSA in the hospital environment, with the latter being more commonly identified as the link in the transmission of MRSA between the patients (2). The role of the MRSA carriers in the transmission of this pathogen is critical. Such carriers may transmit the organism to another person through direct contact, usually through colonized hands and aerosolization following sneezing. Therefore, HCWs who are at the interface between the hospital and the community may serve as the agents of the cross-transmission of the hospital acquired MRSA and the community acquired MRSA (1). O riginal Article Nonetheless, the nosocomial transmissions of MRSA from and through health care givers to the hospitalized patients have been documented and these may be greater than was previously thought (3). The knowledge of the MRSA prevalence and the current antimicrobial profile is necessary for the selection of the appropriate antimicrobial empirical treatment for these infections (4). Similarly, the screening and eradication of MRSA from the colonized HCWs have been recognized and recommended as an important part of a comprehensive infection control policy for this organism. The hospital infection control staff need to limit the spread of MRSA for several reasons. There have recently been reports on the strains of MRSA that had an intermediate resistance to vancomycin. This is an important concern since the already limited treatment options for serious MRSA infections may become more limited due to the increase in resistance to vancomycin. Limiting the transmission of MRSA might reduce the potential for these strains to spread (5). This study was therefore aimed at establishing the carriage rate of MRSA among the HCWs in the critical care units. The outcome may be useful for formulating an MRSA control policy and an infection control policy for our hospital.
This prospective study was conducted between October 2010 and April 2011.
Inclusion criteria:
All the HCWs who were involved in the management of critically ill patients [in the intensive care unit (adult), all surgical specialties, postoperative surgical wards, major Operation Theatre (OT) and minor OT] were recruited into the study after obtaining their informed consent. This study was approved by the ethical review committee of the hospital.
Exclusion criteria:
Hospitalization within the previous one year and the use of antibiotics within one week of collection of the swabs. The age, sex, work category, time of employment, duration of working in the critical care unit, prior hospitalization, current skin infection/other illness and other relevant information about the participants were obtained in a proforma which was designed for this purpose. By using pre-moistened sterile cotton swabs, specimens were collected from the anterior nares, throat, palms and web spaces (taken after at least 30 min of the last hand wash) of the HCWs (5). The specimens were inoculated onto appropriate media and Staphylococcus aureus was identified as per the recommended procedures (6). The in-vitro antibiotic susceptibility test of all the isolates of Staphylococcus aureus was performed by using the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method (7). The antibiotics which were used were penicillin (10U), amoxyclav (20/10mcg), erythromycin (15mcg), gentamicin (10mcg), amikacin (30mcg), ciprofloxacin (5mcg), cotrimoxazole (1.25/23.75mcg), vancomycin (30mcg) and tetracycline (30mcg). The zone diameters were interpreted according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Staphylococcus aureus was further screened for Methicillin resistance by the Kirby-Bauer method by using cefoxitin (30 mcg) discs according to the CLSI guidelines (8). All the MRSA carriers were subjected to decolonization with Mupirocin (supirocin ointment 2% Glenmark), local application twice a day for 10 days and subsequently, the swabs were collected to check for the status of the carrier state.
Statistical analysis:
The findings were statistically analyzed by using the Chi-square test.
Out of the 150 HCWs who were screened for MRSA, 84 (56%) were females and 66 (44%) were males. Nurses 47(31%), nursing orderlies 40(27%) and doctors 36(24%) constituted a majority of the HCWs who were screened (Table/Fig 1). Twenty one (14%) Staphylococcus aureus strains were isolated in all, of which 15 (10%) were MRSA. The proportion of HCWs with the nasal carriage of MRSA was higher (8%) than that on the hand (2%) and none had throat carriage as compared to Methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) with nasal and hand carriage (3.4% and 0.6% respectively) (P< 0.05) (Table/Fig 2).The highest carriage rate was seen in doctors (4%), followed by nurses and nursing orderlies (2% and 2% respectively) (Table/Fig 3). Thirteen (86.6 %) carriers were successfully decolonized with the local application of Mupirocin. However, two of the carriers did not take part in the further studies.The antibiogram of MRSA revealed the highest resistance to penicillin and amoxyclav (93%) each, with no resistance to vancomycin and tetracycline. The sensitivity to erythromycin, gentamicin, amikacin, ciprofloxacin and cotrimoxazole was variable (53%-73%) (Table/Fig 4).
It is necessary to detect the MRSA carriers among the apparently healthy hospital personnel, particularly those working in the critical care areas. These individuals act as a potential source of infection to their patients, resulting in their extended stay in the hospital. This can be controlled by the regular screening of the HCWs and by taking the appropriate preventive measures. In our study, MRSA colonization was found in 10 % of the HCWs. This was in agreement with the internationally reported range of the MRSA carriage (5.8 to 17.8%) among the HCWs in the hospital setting (9). The prevalence of MRSA varies between institutions and geographic areas. The differences in the design of the study such as the sample size and the method of MRSA detection may account for the disparity in the carriage rate. In our study, the MRSA carriage was particularly high among the doctors (4%), followed by the nurses and the nursing orderlies (2% and 2%) (Table/Fig 3). The nasal carrier rate (8%) was higher than the hand carrier rate (2%) (Table/Fig 2). This should be seen as a great challenge because doctors and nurses are the HCWs who have the highest frequency of contact with the patients and those who mostly transmit the MRSA. This underscores the necessity for a preventive intervention in the hospital, more importantly, as one study have shown the nosocomial spread of an MRSA strain which was harboured in the nose of a nurse in two different newborn nurseries (5). Further, the advantage of eradicating the MRSA carriage by the hospital staff and in the institution with effective hospital control policies, is the prevention of its transmission to the family members of the patients and others in the community. Mupirocin is the most frequently evaluated topical agent. It is labelled for use in patients who are aged 12 years and older and in health care workers to reduce the infection risk and the transmission of the infection during institutional outbreaks. Mupirocin is the topical antibiotic of choice for the decolonization of MRSA, as it is very effective for this use (10). In our study, thirteen (86.6 %) carriers were successfully decolonized with the local application of Mupirocin. However, two of the carriers did not take part in the further studies.
To assess the prevalence of MRSA among the HCWs, it is important to determine preventive measures for the hospital infections. There is a need for a greater awareness among the health professionals regarding the standard precautionary measures which are aimed at the prevention of acquisition of pathogens, especially when considering multi-drug resistance and the potential for the transmission of nosocomial infections from the HCWs who are colonized by MRSA to their patients. Although the use of Mupirocin may have a beneficial role in some patients and in the HCWs in controlling the MRSA infection, the use of additional infection prevention practices is very important and it cannot be understated.
Financial OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS:
None.
Date of Submission: Dec 10, 2011
Date of peer review: Feb 07, 2012
Date of acceptance: Feb 21, 2012
Date of Publishing: Jun 22, 2012
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com