Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Bacterial Contamination of Healthcare Providers’ Mobile Phones: Potential Risk of Transmission

Muhammad Halwani*, Eman Hussein, Hossam Al-Hawarri, Hanin Alghamdi, Horeyah Alghamdi, Ameera Alghamdi, Amjad Alzahrani, Ebtehal Alghamdi, Rawan Alghamdi, Lama Alowaydi, Linah Alghamdi, Ashraf Timsah, Khalid Alzahrani, Sameh Zaytoun

Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Al Baha University, Al Baha, Saudi Arabia

Abstract: This study examines pathogen contamination of healthcare providers’ mobile phones and its potential role in pathogen transmission at the main hospital in the Al Baha area, Saudi Arabia. Mobile phones of 166 healthcare providers were swabbed and the swabs were cultured. Healthcare providers completed a questionnaire at the same time to investigate their phone use and cleaning methods at work. The results showed that a total of 23% (38/166) of the swabbed mobile phones were contaminated by clinicians making up >52% (87/166) of the study population. It was found that neither the brand nor the type of screen protector used increased the susceptibility of phone contamination (p>0.05). Approximately 77% (128/166) of those surveyed claimed they believed mobile phone cleaning was important. Moreover, 91% (151/166) confirmed that they performed hand hygiene before and after seeing a patient. Pathogenic bacteria were cultured from 13.2% (5/38) of the contaminated phones. A minority of the study participants admitted that they neither cleaned their phones nor believed doing so was necessary. Therefore, if such ideologies exist, they could present a transmission risk to patients. Hence, all healthcare providers should practice frequent mobile phone cleaning when they are at work, and these methods should be included in infection control policies and procedures in hospitals.

Keywords: bacterial contamination, mobile phones, risk of transmission, healthcare providers, pathogens

Received June 17, 2021; Revised July 24, 2021; Accepted August 04, 2021

Citation: Muhammad Halwani, Eman Hussein, Hossam Al-Hawarri, Hanin Alghamdi, Horeyah Alghamdi, Ameera Alghamdi, Amjad Alzahrani, Ebtehal Alghamdi, Rawan Alghamdi, Lama Alowaydi, Linah Alghamdi, Ashraf Timsah, Khalid Alzahrani, Sameh Zaytoun, Bacterial Contamination of Healthcare Providers’ Mobile Phones: Potential Risk of Transmission. American Journal of Epidemiology and Infectious Disease, 9 (1). 4-10. January 2021. doi:10.12691/ajeid-9-1-2

1. Introduction

Mobile phones are useful in healthcare settings, particularly for healthcare providers in hospitals. However, the literature on mobile phone use in healthcare, especially during daily hospital activities, is limited. As the spread of multidrug-resistant bacteria has increased, so has the concern about mobile phone contamination in medical settings, especially in critical care units, such as operating rooms, intensive care units, and burn units. [1,2]

Smartphone innovation enables healthcare providers to facilitate instant communication, take and transfer photographs, search for medication requests, and provide opportunities for clinicians and patients to discuss information. Their use may also limit medical errors and help diagnosis. Study findings illustrate the positive effects of mobile phones on patient care [3] as over 80% of healthcare providers use phones in the workplace between three and twenty times per day. [4]

Hand hygiene is a simple practice that healthcare providers can apply in any hospital. It is necessary because mobile phone contamination is possible, especially when no routine cleaning protocol is in place. [5,6] Studies have found that in a hospital setting, items including stethoscopes, bed rails, entryway handles, and thermometers, which are touched multiple times, can become contaminated with pathogenic bacteria. [7,8] Most items can be decontaminated as part of routine cleaning and disinfection policies in hospitals. However, the cleaning of mobile phones is often not included in such policies. Studies in Saudi Arabia regarding bacterial pathogen contamination of mobile phones used by healthcare providers are limited. This study addresses this gap and examines bacterial contamination of healthcare providers’ mobile phones in a hospital setting and the potential risk of transmission this contamination may present to patients.

2. Material & Methods

This study was conducted at the main general hospital (350 beds) in the Al Baha area of southwest Saudi Arabia. It was introduced to the staff upon their arrival during their morning duties. Out of 1,375 clinical staff members working at the hospital, 166 volunteered to contribute. Only staff who had time to participate and agreed verbally to be part of the study joined in. The data were collected for a one-week period in June 2018. No personal information was collected or used (e.g., names, initials, or hospital ID numbers). Therefore, there was no need for any ethical committee approval for this study.

2.1. Data Collection

An in-house questionnaire was used to collect data from healthcare providers, including demographic characteristics such as age, gender, nationality, years of experience and frequency of in-hospital mobile phone use (see Appendix 1). The questionnaire also included questions on mobile phone hygiene practices, namely, cleaning methods used and frequency of cleaning/disinfection. All healthcare provider participants were randomly chosen and participated voluntarily in the study. The questionnaire took approximately three minutes for each participant to fill out.

While healthcare providers completed the questionnaire, their phones were swabbed with saline-moisturized sterile swabs. The same swab was used to collect samples from the front screen, the sides, and the back of the phone. To prevent indirect contamination, the data collectors used an alcoholic sanitizer to disinfect their hands and wore medical gloves while performing the sampling. Each collected sample was labelled with a unique identification number and placed in the transport medium. The samples were then transferred to the laboratory for culture and sensitivity tests within four hours of sampling. All swabs were cultured on blood and MacConkey agar plates. They were incubated for 48 hours at 37°C. Plates with no growth were recorded as negative results. Those with any growth were further examined using routine microbiological methods. Sensitivity to antibiotics was reported based on the pathogens identified.

2.2. Statistical Methods

Results for categorical variables were presented as numbers and percentages. Chi-squared (χ2) tests were used to test for differences between the categorical data. Fisher’s exact tests were used when chi-squared tests were inapplicable. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 21.0 software was used to perform all statistical analysis. Statistical significance was set at a p-value<0.05.

3. Results

The study population consisted of 59% male (98/166) and 41% female (67/166) respondents ranging in age from 20 to 50+ years (see Table 1).

Out of the 166 mobile phones sampled, 23% (38/166) had evidence of bacterial contamination, including four strains of staphylococcus: Staph. epidermidis (79%), Staph. aureus (2.6%), Staph. capitis (2.6%), and Staph. spp (2.6%). Aeromonas salmonicida (2.6%), Pseudomonas alcaligenes (2.6%), Klebsiella pneumonia (2.6%), Acinetobacter haemolyticus (2.6%), and Enterobacter cloacae (2.6%) were also found. Five isolates (13.2%, 5/38) were considered pathogenic and are known to cause hospital infections. None of the identified isolates were considered multidrug-resistant bacteria (see Table 2).

Table 1. General characteristics of the study group and the degree of mobile phone contamination

Table 2. Antimicrobial sensitivity results of pathogenic bacteria identified on contaminated mobile phones (n=5)

Different types of healthcare providers, including doctors, nurses, technicians, pharmacists, and office workers, were included in the study, and their years of experience spanned the following ranges: 0–5 years, 6-10 years, 11–15 years, and >15 years. Healthcare providers from the emergency, surgery, infection control, medicine, pediatrics, intensive care, radiology, and clinical pathology departments were included. Notably, department and years of experience did not contribute significantly to differences in the degree of phone contamination. Phones belonging to younger male healthcare providers were more prone to bacterial contamination than those belonging to female ones and older workers (>40 years of age), but the differences were not statistically significant (p-values>0.05) (see Table 3).

Neither the mobile phone brand nor the type of screen protector used affected susceptibility to contamination (see Table 4).

A greater part of the study population (97%, 162/166) admitted to using mobile phones in the hospital during duty hours. Most (77%) were aware of the importance of phone cleaning in general and particularly when seeing patients, but it was unclear whether they cleaned their phones on a regular basis or not (see Table 5).

Around (91%, 151/166) of respondents reported that they performed hand hygiene before and after seeing a patient and applied the five moments of hand hygiene. Of the five phones found to be contaminated with pathogenic bacteria, two were owned by healthcare providers who did not clean their phones or think doing so was necessary (see Table 6).

Table 3. Relationship between work experience role, department, respectively, and incidence of mobile phone contamination

Table 4. Relationship between knowledge of mobile phone cleaning methods and degree of phone contamination (n=166)

Table 5. Relationship between mobile phone brand and contamination (n=166)

Table 6. Relationship between hand hygiene practices during work and mobile phone contamination (n=151)

4. Discussion

In this study, almost one-quarter (23%) of phones belonging to healthcare providers working in the main hospital of the Al Baha area were contaminated with bacteria. Most of the isolated species were not commonly associated with clinical infections, but some were involved in severe infections as found in other studies. [9,10] Slightly over one-half of the study population comprised of clinicians (52%) whose mobile phones were more likely to be contaminated with a significant number of pathogenic bacteria. S. epidermidis, which was isolated in this study, is involved in varying clinical exposure outcomes, such as severe infection in immunocompromised patients (e.g., biofilm-associated infections in intensive care units). [1,6,11]

A lack of hand hygiene among clinicians during the study period is likely to have contributed to phone contamination with skin flora. Phones belonging to males and younger healthcare providers were more susceptible to bacterial contamination than those belonging to female ones and workers >40 years of age. However, the differences were statistically insignificant (p-values>0.05). Inconsistently, most healthcare providers indicated that they performed hand hygiene with 91% claiming to clean their hands before and after seeing patients and following the five moments of hand hygiene.

Phones belonging to healthcare providers are associated with a risk of bacterial transmission that may cause severe infection. [12,13,14] The low degree of contamination of mobile phones may indicate good compliance in hand hygiene at this hospital. This is in contrast to an earlier study, that found a higher rate of mobile phone contamination. [15] Of note, monitoring of hand hygiene compliance is a part of the monthly quality control protocol followed by infection control team members at this hospital; however, outlining and discussing this data is beyond the aims of this study.

Regarding the work characteristics of the study group, doctors with less experience or who worked in surgery, the emergency room, pediatrics wards, and medical wards were more likely to have phones contaminated with bacterial colonies compared with healthcare providers from other wards. However, these differences were not statistically significant (p-values>0.05). Although most of the study population used their phones in the hospital, almost all were aware of the importance of phone cleaning when seeing patients. Unfortunately, this knowledge appears to have been insufficient to encourage the required commitment to consistent mobile phone cleaning.

The identified risk variables, phone brand and type of cover used, were not significantly associated with a higher or lower presence of bacteria. The phones were manufactured by popular mobile phone production companies both worldwide and in Saudi Arabia. Apple and Samsung phones represented about 80% of the phones used in this study, followed by other brands. Approximately 80% of healthcare providers used screen protectors and two-thirds used phone covers. However, when these variables were examined, no significant differences were found (p-values>0.05).

The results of this study are consistent with the results of most studies in the region. [12,16,17] Compared with stationary phones, mobile phones have a higher chance of contamination with pathogenic bacteria in hospital settings. [11,12,18] In some critical departments, such as the intensive care unit (ICU), the risk of mobile phone contamination with resistant bacteria such as E. coli is higher than in other departments. [17] However, this study does not examine this correlation, as the sampling was performed randomly across hospital wards and the sample size was insufficient for inter-ward comparisons. Some researchers have emphasized that healthcare providers’ mobile phones can easily become contaminated with pathogenic bacteria and can serve as a potential source of major transmission between staff and patients. [12,17,19] The results of this study are consistent with this conclusion as well. The chances of finding non-pathogenic bacteria or skin contaminants are likely comparable to the chance of finding pathogenic bacteria, and all can cause infection in immunocompromised patients. [20]

Approximately 77% of participating healthcare staff responded that cleaning mobile phones frequently is important. However, routine phone cleaning, meaning cleaning with alcohol-based sanitizers within 48 hours prior to the study, was not performed regularly among all study participants. This might explain the finding of non-pathogenic bacteria such as skin flora, as daily wiping with alcohol could have reduced the possibility for bacteria to be present. Although a high percentage of participating staff indicated that they knew phone cleaning was important, determining the actual number of staff who consistently did so was difficult. This question should be examined in future studies.

No evidence-based guidelines exist for the use of mobile phones in healthcare facilities. [2,12,21] The findings of this study contribute to the findings of other studies, indicating that mobile phones operate as a vehicle for the transmission of organisms between patients and healthcare providers. [16,19,22] Almost two-thirds of participants used alcohol-based wipes, which can thoroughly decontaminate mobile phones for safe use in healthcare facilities. Given that these phones play important roles in modern healthcare facilities, procedures to decontaminate mobile phones with alcohol-based wipes while adhering to other infection control procedures (e.g., hand washing) should be developed and implemented.

5. Conclusion

Healthcare providers phones were examined in this study. Some of the bacteria found were pathogenic and can be transmitted to patients and cause severe infection. This indicates the need for a more comprehensive approach to reduce the transmission of pathogenic bacteria via mobile phones within healthcare settings. In addition to regular hand washing, wiping mobile phones with alcohol-based sanitizers could reduce the degree of pathogen contamination. This study also revealed that some clinicians do not understand the importance of phone disinfection before and after contact with patients. Healthcare providers must be made more aware that mobile phones should be disinfected regularly to reduce the risk of transmission of pathogenic bacteria. They should also practice frequent mobile phone cleaning, and this should be enforced through infection control policies and procedures in all hospitals.

This study has some limitations. The findings demonstrate mobile phone contamination with different bacteria, but the incidence of contamination was not determined to a high degree of accuracy because participation in the study was optional. The rate of phone contamination among staff may therefore be greater than has been found, especially among healthcare providers in constant contact with patients. Also, the phones of staff who have more contact with severely ill patients (e.g., in the ICU) might have a higher degree of contamination than those of staff in other wards or departments with patients in less critical conditions. Although the study has found the presence of bacteria that can cause life-threating infections, examining the clinical significance of these findings is beyond the aim of the study. Finally, the findings reflect the behavior of staff in a single hospital. A study of more hospitals in the region would be needed to express a comprehensive conclusion regarding the use of mobile phones by healthcare providers.

Statement of Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the healthcare providers who contributed in this study.

References

Appendix 1

Mobile Phone Study Questionnaire

Swab code number:

Gender

Male

Female

Age (years)

20–30

31–40

41–50

>50

Experience (years)

≤5

6–10

11–15

>15

Job Classification

Doctor

Nurse

Technician

Pharmacist

Office worker

Other

Department

Emergency

Surgery

Infection Control

Paediatrics

Intensive Care Unit

Radiology

Laboratory Medicine

Other

Do you use your mobile phone in the hospital?

Yes

No

Do you clean your mobile phone?

Yes

No

Sometimes

Never

If yes, what do you clean it with?

Alcohol swab

Dry tissue

Wet tissue

Other

If yes, how often do you clean it?

Once a day

Once a week

Once every two weeks

Don’t know

If yes, do you consider cleaning your mobile phone important?

Yes

No

Maybe

Don’t know

Do you think it’s important to clean your mobile phone after seeing a patient?

Yes

No

Maybe

Don’t know

What type of mobile phone do you have?

Apple

Samsung

Huawei

Nokia

Sony

Other

Do you use a screen protector?

Yes

No

If yes, what kind of screen protector do you use?

Nano

Glass

Other

Don’t know

Do you use a phone cover?

Yes

No

Do you think you are a hand hygiene supporter?

Yes

No

If yes, how often do you clean/disinfect your hands?

After seeing a patient

Before seeing a patient

As necessary

According to the five moments of hand hygiene

Before and after seeing a patient

Upon arriving at work

Upon leaving work

[1]   | Snyder, M., Thom, A. and Furuno, P. “Detection of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci by healthcare workers on infection control gowns and gloves,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 29 (7). 583-589. 2008.
[2]   | Soto, R.G., Chu, L.F., Goldman, J.M., Rampil, I.J. and Ruskin, K.J., “Communication in critical care environments: mobile telephones improve patient care,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, 102. 535-541. 2006.
[3]   | Harika, G., Prashanth, K. and Amana, A., “Bacteriological study of microorganisms on mobiles and stethoscopes used by health care workers in emergency and ICU’s,” International Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences, 2 (3): 290-297. 2013.
[4]   | Kokate S.B., More, R.S., Gujar, V., Mundhe, S. and Zahiruddin, S.J., “Microbiological flora of mobile phones of resident doctors,” Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, 5. 696-698. 2012.
[5]   | Borer, A., Gilad, J., Smolyakov, R., Eskira, S., Peled, N., Porat, N., Hyam, E., Trefler, R., Riesenberg, K. and Schlaeffer, F., “Mobile phones and Acinetobacter transmission,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11. 1160-1161. 2005.
[6]   | Borkow, G. and Monk, A., “Fighting nosocomial infections with biocidal non-intrusive hard and soft surfaces,” World Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2 (4). 77-90. 2012.
[7]   | Akinyemi, K.O., Atapu, A.D., Adetona, O.O. and Coker, A.O., “The potential role of mobile phones in spread of bacterial infections,” The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 3 (8). 628-632. 2009.
[8]   | Brady, R.R., Fraser, S.F., Dunlop, M.G., Paterson-Brown, S. and Gibb, A.P. “Bacterial contamination of mobile communication devices in the operative environment,” Journal of Hospital Infection, 66. 397-398. 2007.
[9]   | Castro-Jaimes, S., Bello-López, E., Velázquez-Acosta, C., Volkow-Fernández, P., Lozano-Zarain, P., Castillo-Ramírez, S. and Cevallos, M.A., “Chromosome architecture and gene content of the emergent pathogen,” Acinetobacter haemolyticus. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11. 926. 2020.
[10]   | Suzuki, M., Suzuki, S., Matsui, M., Hiraki, Y., Kawano, F. and Shibayama, K., “Genome sequence of a strain of the human pathogenic bacterium Pseudomonas alcaligenes that caused bloodstream infection,” Genome Announcements, 1 (5). e00919-13. 2013.
[11]   | Ulger, F., Essen, S., Dilek, A., Yanik, K., Gunaydin, M. and Leblebicioglu, H. “Are we aware how contaminated our mobile phones are with nosocomial pathogens?” Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials 8. 7. 2009.
[12]   | Lee, Y.J., Yoo, C.G., Lee, C.T., Chung, H.S., Kim, Y.W., Han, S.K. and Yim, J.J., “Contamination rates between smart mobile phones and non-smart mobile phones of healthcare workers,” Journal of Hospital Medicine 8 (3). 144-147. 2013.
[13]   | Trivedi, H.R., Desai, K.J., Trivedi, L.P., Malek, S.S. and Javdekar, T.B. “Role of mobile phone in spreading hospital acquired infection: a study in different groups of health care workers,” National Journal of Integrated Research in Medicine, 2 (3). 61-66. 2011.
[14]   | World Health Organization, Healthcare-associated infection fact sheet. 2010. https://www.who.int/gpsc/country_work/gpsc_ccisc_fact_sheet_en.pdf.
[15]   | Bodena, D., Teklemariam, Z., Balakrishnan, S. and Tesfa, T., “Bacterial contamination of mobile phones of health professionals in eastern Ethiopia: Antimicrobial susceptibility and associated factors,” Tropical Medicine and Health, 47. 15. 2019.
[16]   | Chang, C.H., Chen, S.Y., Lu, J.J., Chang, C.J., Chang, Y. and Hsieh, P.H., “Nasal colonization and bacterial contamination of mobile phones carried by medical staff in the operating room,” PLoS One, 12 (5). 1-11. 2017.
[17]   | Beckstrom, A.C., Cleman, P.E., Cassis-Ghavami, F.L. and Kamitsuka, M.D., “Surveillance study of bacterial contamination of the parent’s cell phone in the NICU and the effectiveness of an anti-microbial gel in reducing transmission to the hands,” Journal of Perinatology, 33 (12). 960–963. 2013.
[18]   | Morioka, I., Tabuchi, Y., Takahashi, Y., Oda, Y., Nakai, M., Yanase, A. and Watazu, C. “Bacterial contamination of mobile phones shared in hospital wards and the consciousness and behavior of nurses about biological cleanliness,” Nihon Eiseigaku Zasshi, 66 (1). 115-121. 2011.
[19]   | Marcham, C., “Coats, ties, stethoscopes, mobile phones, and ID badges: potential sources of healthcare-associated infections?” Environmental Health and Safety, 16 (1). 1-4. 2009.
[20]   | Marchant, E.A., Boyce, G.K., Sadarangani, M. and Lavoie, P.M., “Neonatal sepsis due to coagulase-negative staphylococci,” Journal of Immunological Research, 2013. 1-10. 2013.
[21]   | Jagadeesan, Y., Deepa, M. and Kannagi, M., “Mobile phones as fomites in microbial dissemination,” International Journal of Current Science, 5 (1). 6-14. 2013.
[22]   | Datta, P., Rani, H., Chander, J. and Gupta, V., “Bacterial contamination of mobile phones of health care workers,” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, 27. 279-281. 2009.