Mrsa

Skunky

Oct 18, '07 · 10:18 AM4,873

It is raining cats and dogs right now, so the old clinic is a little quiet. On the commute I heard a number of sensational stories on 'MRSA', so I thought I would throw out a few points on the topic. MRSA stands for methicillin resistant Staph aureus. Staph aureus is a bacteria (NOT a virus as was reported on a radio news story I heard!) that is literally everywhere in our environment, including your skin! Don't be alarmed, it is supposed to be there. Not all Staph aureus is created equal, however. At some point in the 1960s IV drug abusers were noted to have 'staph infections' in the skin and bloodstream, and the staph was noted to be resistant to many of the antibiotics in use at that time. That was the beginning of MRSA. Continued skin and bloodborne infection treated with antibiotics in the drug abusers led to mutation in the bacteria's genes which made them 'resist' the antibiotics...unlike your friendly nurse, addicts usually do not take the time to cleanse their skin with alcohol or dispose of needles following injection, hence, the Staph that was on their skin was literally injected into deeper tissue and the blood along with their heroin.

Fast forward to today. Carrying MRSA is no longer an honor for pockets of IV drug abusers. The bacteria is everywhere. True, it is still concentrated in population pockets, but it is safe to say a swabbing of random surfaces in a 'clean' place like SOWAL (say swabbing ATM buttons, door handles, etc) would yield plenty of MRSA. Am I trying to scare you? No. My point is that you are living with MRSA as we speak and you are managing to survive. When I was a resident at the hospital, we drained skin abscesses (boils) all day and night that were full of MRSA...we didn't even bother to culture the stuff anymore.

So what should you do? Simple, use common sense and don't panic. Wash your hands frequently when out in public. If you have a recurrent issue with boils, you may very well be carrying MRSA and should go to your doctor's office and discuss it with her as there are therapies. A MRSA infection is not a death sentence, we do have antibiotics that can eradicate the bug. Finally, and this is HUGE, if you or somebody in your family has an infection (cold, flu, sore throat) and your provider opines that antibiotics are not needed, PLEASE don't take it personally and get bent out of shape. Unwarranted antibiotic therapy just makes this problem worse. :wave:

Replies

beats on hood

Oct 24, '07 · 7:31 PM#52

Actually, I became friends with the former director of the CDC after I had many questions about my risks (and my family's risk) as a client of a very close friend and hairdresser who had full-blown AIDS. It just broke my heart when he died. I will never forget that day. :cry:

I wouldn't hesitate to call the current director of the CDC, Julie Gerberding. That's a good idea. Thanks, NoHall. I will contact her.

SoWal Expert

Oct 24, '07 · 7:54 PM#53

The other students have not complained because they are clueless -- they are invincible at that age. This student has a bacterial infection oozing from his neck. He wipes it with his hand, and he has to leave class at least once during the one-hour class to take care of it.

I have been told by my employer that they can't ask him to bandage the open sore. So my only choice is to go on prophylactic antibiotics which is not healthy for me. And think of how many people who are clueless that when he wipes the lesion and touches a doorknob that they are exposing themselves to an MRSA? I asked my employer to email all employees and students regarding ways to avoid MRSAs -- the same email that was sent to everyone at my husband's huge corporation.

Where the HELL do you work where an oozing sore is treated so callously and is not a health issue? I gagged and felt the need to go wash my hands just reading your post!!! :puke:

beats on hood

Oct 24, '07 · 9:00 PM#54

Where the HELL do you work where an oozing sore is treated so callously and is not a health issue? I gagged and felt the need to go wash my hands just reading your post!!!

Well, I am told that my employer that their lawyer has said that there is no legal basis for removing the student from my classroom or requiring that he wear a bandage on the open wound. I am told that while the institution could adopt a policy, as other institutions have done, the obligation is on them to enforce the policy, which, potentially, could make them more liable, if they don?t hold people to the policy. Furthermore, they say they would be required to show that the adoption of the policy and the enforcement of it in this case is not due to this particular circumstance.

So I have resigned myself to being on antibiotics until this student graduates. Don't get me wrong -- I really don't want to hurt the institution at which I'm employed, but think of all of the employees and students who are clueless about MRSA and the fact that this student has an oozing infection. At least I am knowledgeable enough to get put on antibiotics and carry Purell with me every time I touch a doorknob. Other people's health might be in jeopardy because of lack of education.

SoWal Expert

Oct 24, '07 · 9:14 PM#55

Seriously, I put off eating dinner an hour ago because of your post! (We so need a WTF smilie BTW).

I just CAN'T believe that there is no health imperative/policy in place for this. My college required a physical and certain immunizations prior to enrollment, as did my summer camp FTLOG. How is an oozing sore (I just had another spinal cringe typing that) that requires a student leave class on a daily basis to deal with it NOT an issue?

Can you file an anonymous complaint/drop a word in a student's parent's ear and have them raise a stink w/ the administration?

Going on antibiotics when you do not have an infection is part of why MRSA et al is an issue, but please take all other available precautions to protect yourself from this hideously medieval medical situation.

hmmmm......can't remember

Oct 24, '07 · 9:17 PM#56

Isn't the use of antibiotics as a preventative one of the reasons that antibiotics stop working in some folks? Skunky?

beats on hood

Oct 24, '07 · 9:35 PM#57

Seriously, I put off eating dinner an hour ago because of your post! (We so need a WTF smilie BTW).

I just CAN'T believe that there is no health imperative/policy in place for this. My college required a physical and certain immunizations prior to enrollment, as did my summer camp FTLOG. How is an oozing sore (I just had another spinal cringe typing that) that requires a student leave class on a daily basis to deal with it NOT an issue?

Can you file an anonymous complaint/drop a word in a student's parent's ear and have them raise a stink w/ the administration?

Going on antibiotics when you do not have an infection is part of why MRSA et al is an issue, but please take all other available precautions to protect yourself from this hideously medieval medical situation.

You are correct.

Isn't the use of antibiotics as a preventative one of the reasons that antibiotics stop working in some folks? Skunky?

Exactly.

So what does one with a heart valve problem do? :idontno:

Beach Fanatic

Oct 24, '07 · 11:32 PM#58

Visitors help healing sometimes. Not to mention provide much needed care that is not always available with a call button. Hospitals need to clean up their act with handwashing, accountable housekeeping and disinfecting, and using isolation appropriately. They need to hire adequate staff in the trenches to clean up their act.

I gotta say that although I agree that a hospital isn't an amusement park, I appreciate the visitor aspect, too. I had some emergency surgery a few years ago and had to stay 3 days, and it still touches me to remember the stream of people who came to see me--some came by before I even was awake enough to realize they were there.

My mother works as a transcriptionist in the pathology lab at the hospital here, and they have even made a big deal out of having her department wash/sanitize their hands frequently. They don't want to send anything bad home with them.

I don't disagree with either reply- IN MODERATION. I am a huge advocate of having people with you to help with the care giving (that's from personal experience as well) and yes, visitors can provide a needed morale boost.

However, a stream of visitors, especially when you are not yet awake is part of the handwashing/sanitizing problem- they are exposing people with no good purpose. I have been praticing universal precautions (lots of handwashing and sanitizing involved there) since the 80's. Most visitors will look at you as if you are mad if you suggest washing hands when they come in and go out. Why would anyone want to expose children (particularly toddlers and infants) to a healthcare environment if not necessary? I have seen waiting rooms for critical care units PACKED with visitors of all ages not to mention the pizza boxes and fast food pacakges.

Yes, healthcare workers and facilities are working to make the environment safer for all of us- patients, employees and visitors. However, fewer unnecessary outside visitors would not be a hardship for patients and would be a benefit as we fight these problems together. Wouldn't it be easier if all of us thought a minute about what is best before visiting someone in the hospital? That way, hospitals won't have to set up yet one more rule.

Edited Oct 24, '07 · 11:34 PM

Beach Fanatic

Oct 25, '07 · 12:04 AM#59

Yes. You're right about moderation. I sure wouldn't want to expose my baby to any unnecessary risks either. :wub:

I guess it's all highly individual depending on the patient and illness, etc.

SkunkyAuthor

Oct 25, '07 · 6:43 AM#60

Isn't the use of antibiotics as a preventative one of the reasons that antibiotics stop working in some folks? Skunky?

My gut tells me it is probably overkill for a heart valve patient to take prophylactic antibiotics for routine exposure. That is usually reserved for occasions where the bloodstream will be seeded with bacteria-ie, during surgery or dental work. Remember that MRSA is everywhere, thus to be consistent, all patients at higher risk for endocarditis would be taking antibiotics every day;furthermore, many of the antibiotics used for prophylaxis probably don't do much to MRSA anyway. Still, I can understand BR's concern. I will see what I can find from published studies, ok? :wave: