MARATTO

article · Journal of Human Environment and Health Promotion

Assessment of Bacterial Contamination on Fomites and Healthcare Workers and Antibiotic Susceptibility Patterns of Bacterial Isolates in the Gynecology Ward of Abia State Tertiary Healthcare Facilities in Abia State

Abstract

Background: Bacterial contamination of the Gynecology ward is a public health concern because it is the primary cause of nosocomial infections in postpartum moms and one of the primary risk factors for sepsis in newborns.This study evaluated the bacterial contamination of fomites, nostrils, and palms of healthcare workers in the Gynecology ward.Methods: A total of 244 samples were collected and cultured on Blood, Mannitol salt, and MacConkey agar.Standard biochemical tests were carried out to characterize the organisms.Antibiotic susceptibility patterns of the isolates were carried out using the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method.Results: Out of the 244 samples, 95(38.93%)yielded bacterial growth.Of these, 75 isolates (40.76%) were isolated from fomites, while 20 (33.33%) were isolated from the palms of hands and nostrils of healthcare workers.The most common bacterial isolate was Staphylococcus aureus (46 isolates 48.42%), whereas the least common was Streptococcus spp.(1isolates 1.05%).The Gram-negative bacterial isolates were resistant to Ceftriaxone, Cefuroxime, Cotrimoxazole, and Ceftazidine.The Grampositive bacterial isolates were resistant to Ampicillin, Ciprofloxacin, Augmentin, Ceftazidine, and Cephalexin. Conclusion:This study revealed the presence of bacterial pathogens on fomites and within the nostrils of healthcare workers in the Gynecology ward, underscoring the necessity for regular monitoring of bacterial contamination in these environments.

Research topics

  • Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Healthcare cost, quality, practices

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.61186/jhehp.11.3.162

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.