The microbiological contamination of the environment in independent healthcare facilities such as dental and general practitioner offices was poorly studied. The aims of this study were to describe qualitatively and quantitatively the bacterial and fungal contamination in these healthcare facilities and to analyze the antibiotic resistance of bacterial pathogens identified. Microbiological samples were taken from the surfaces of waiting, consulting, and sterilization rooms and from the air of waiting room of ten dental and general practitioner offices. Six surface samples were collected in each sampled room using agar contact plates and swabs. Indoor air samples were collected in waiting rooms using a single-stage impactor. Bacteria and fungi were cultured, then counted and identified. Antibiograms were performed to test the antibiotic susceptibility of bacterial pathogens. On the surfaces, median concentrations of bacteria and fungi were 126 (range: 0–1280) and 26 (range: 0–188) CFU/100 cm2, respectively. In indoor air, those concentrations were 403 (range: 118–732) and 327 (range: 32–806) CFU/m3, respectively. The main micro-organisms identified were Gram-positive cocci and filamentous fungi, including six ubiquitous genera: Micrococcus, Staphylococcus, Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, and Alternaria. Some antibiotic-resistant bacteria were identified in general practitioner offices (penicillin- and erythromycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), but none in dental offices. The dental and general practitioner offices present a poor microbiological contamination with rare pathogenic micro-organisms.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Interest of contact precautions (CP) to prevent cross-transmission in addition to standard precautions (SP) is actually debated in the literature for some microorganisms, like extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBLE). We took advantage of the decision to stop CP for ESBLE in our hospital to study in real life if this discontinuing has an impact on the ESBLE acquisition rate. Methods: An interrupted time series (ITS) was performed in 3 wards and the week was used as the temporal unit. The ESBLE acquisition and importation incidence density (ID) and potential risks factors (colonization and selective pressure, Alcohol-Based hand rub solution consumption rates, demographic patients data) were collected between two periods: the pre-intervention (July 2018 to June 2019) when patients infected or colonized by ESBLE were cared with PC and SP and the post-intervention (September 2019 to March 2020) when patients were cared with SP only. Results: ESBLE acquisition ID were of 1.32 ± 1.36 and 1.17 ± 1.25 cases per 1000 patient-days for the pre- and post-intervention period respectively with no significant change in slope (p = 0.15). The only confounding variable significant (p = 0.04) in ITS was the antibiotics consumption, with a positive increasing trend. Conclusion: This study showed that the SP alone in order to control the ESBLE nosocomial did not lead to increasing the ESBLE nosocomial cross-transmission.