Using marker pens on patients: A potential source of cross infection with MRSA

37Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Marker pens are widely used in surgery but preoperative marking of patients may be a cause of bacterial cross-infection. Two experiments were performed to assess whether marking pens can be cause of cross-infection: (i) 26 indelible marker pens were collected from surgical wards for analysis; and (ii) 'fresh' as well as 'dry' (artificially dried by removing cap and exposing tip for 2 h) new permanent marker pens, and whiteboard marker pens were inoculated by dipping the tips into various concentrations of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Each pen was inoculated onto 2 blood agar plates at 0 (immediately after inoculation) to 30 min at various intervals, 4 h and 24 h. The plates were incubated for 18 h at 35°C in an incubator. Of 26 pens collected from the wards, 2 cultured Micrococci spp. (skin commensals). The constituents of new 'fresh' pen tips rapidly kill MRSA - in all cases by 4 h, but usually within minutes. At high inoculum concentrations, MRSA is not killed immediately. Dry marker pens harbour MRSA for at least 30 min and probably longer. Marker pens can act as fomites for nosocomial infection. The ethanol-based ink in permanent marker pens has a bactericidal action against MRSA that starts within seconds, and they are likely to be safe to use with a gap of at least 2 min between patients. Usually, harmless skin commensals are not pathogenic except in immunocompromised patients. Old or dried-out marker pens can harbour pathogens and should be discarded before attempted use on patients. We recommend disposable markers for the immunocompromised and patients with a known positive MRSA status.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tadiparthi, S., Shokrollahi, K., Juma, A., & Croall, J. (2007). Using marker pens on patients: A potential source of cross infection with MRSA. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 89(7), 661–664. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588407X209419

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free