Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

The stethoscope and cross-infection revisited

Stuart Sanders
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (510): 54-55.
Stuart Sanders
22 Harmont House, 20 Harley Street, London W1G 9PH. E-mail:
Roles: General Practitioner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: drsanders@msn.com
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Jevons first reported methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in 19611 and it has now become a serious cause for concern in UK hospitals. Indeed, it has even entered the political arena.2 In 2003, a search for MRSA using www.yahoo.com yielded 153 000 results; this has now risen to 329 000 references.

Last year, a letter of mine was published here; it detailed a bacteriological examination of my practice stethoscope, which showed that it did not carry MRSA bacteria over a 2-week period.3 I have since examined 50 stethoscopes chosen at random. They were in daily use by doctors in general practice in the London area drawn from the membership of the Independent Doctors Forum. Their stethoscope bells and diaphragms were imprinted on blood agar medium plates, which were then incubated for 24 hours at 37°C. The Doctors Laboratory examined those culture plates that grew bacteria and identified these bacteria, further testing staphylococci to establish if they were MRSA species.

Of the 50 stethoscopes examined, 13 carried no bacteria at all, 15 carried mixed skin flora, and coagulase negative staphylococci were isolated in 22. Not one of these 50 stethoscopes carried MRSA. This can be contrasted with previous studies, and particularly with a paper by Smith et al,4 which showed that in 1996 in the hospital environment, MRSA frequently colonised stethoscopes used on medical and surgical wards. They found 68 out of 200 stethoscopes (34%) to be positive for MRSA; comparing this with my results, a χ2 test gives P<0.001, which is highly significant.

My study, therefore, clearly demonstrates that the stethoscope is not a vector for MRSA in the community. This observation strongly suggests, but does not prove, that MRSA presents a problem in the UK that is confined to the hospital environment.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2005.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Jevons MP
    (1961) ‘Celbenin’-resistant staphylococci. BMJ 1:124–125.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Derbyshire D
    (September 2, 2004) Labour is to blame for superbugs, says Howard. The Daily Telegraph, http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/02/nmrsa02.xml (accessed 6 Dec 2004).
  3. ↵
    1. Sanders S
    (2003) The stethoscope and cross infection. Br J Gen Pract 53:971–972.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Smith MA,
    2. Mathewson JJ,
    3. Ulert IA,
    4. et al.
    (1996) Contaminated stethoscopes revisted. Arch Intern Med 156(1):82–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 55 (510)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 55, Issue 510
January 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The stethoscope and cross-infection revisited
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The stethoscope and cross-infection revisited
Stuart Sanders
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (510): 54-55.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The stethoscope and cross-infection revisited
Stuart Sanders
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (510): 54-55.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • It’s time to look again at GP funding
  • Inequalities in CKD management can be overcome
  • Changes in patient experience associated with growth and collaboration in general practice
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242