The microbiome of an outpatient rehabilitation clinic and predictors of contamination: A pilot study

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Understanding sources of microbial contamination in outpatient rehabilitation (REHAB) clinics is important to patients and healthcare providers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the microbiome of an outpatient REHAB clinic and examine relationships between clinic factors and contamination. METHODS: Forty commonly contacted surfaces in an outpatient REHAB clinic were observed for frequency of contact and swiped using environmental sample collection kits. Surfaces were categorized based on frequency of contact and cleaning and surface type. Total bacterial and fungal load was assessed using primer sets specific for the 16S rRNA and ITS genes, respectively. Bacterial samples were sequenced using the Illumina system and analyzed using Illumina-utils, Minimum Entropy Decomposition, QIIME2 (for alpha and beta diversity), LEfSe and ANCOM-BC for taxonomic differential abundance and ADONIS to test for differences in beta diversity (p<0.05). RESULTS: Porous surfaces had more bacterial DNA compared to non-porous surfaces (median non-porous = 0.0016ng/μL, 95%CI = 0.0077-0.00024ng/μL, N = 15; porous = 0.0084 ng/μL, 95%CI = 0.0046-0.019 ng/μL, N = 18. p = 0.0066,DNA. Samples clustered by type of surface with non-porous surfaces further differentiated by those contacted by hand versus foot. ADONIS two-way ANOVA showed that the interaction of porosity and contact frequency (but neither alone) had a significant effect on 16S communities (F = 1.7234, R2 = 0.0609, p = 0.032). DISCUSSION: Porosity of surfaces and the way they are contacted may play an underestimated, but important role in microbial contamination. Additional research involving a broader range of clinics is required to confirm results. Results suggest that surface and contact-specific cleaning and hygiene measures may be needed for optimal sanitization in outpatient REHAB clinics.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.