Welcome to the all-new Vetlearn

  • Exciting News Coming to Vetlearn in August 2014!
    Coming soon you'll be able to access...
  • Nearly 5,000 Compendium and Veterinary
  • Thousands of industry Conference Proceedings
  • All-new articles (CE and other topics) for the
    entire healthcare team
  • Over 500 hours of interactive CE Videos
  • An engaging new community for asking
    questions, making connections and more!

To access Vetlearn, you must first sign in or register.


  • Registration for new subscribers will open in August 2014!
  • Watch for additional exciting news coming soon!
Become a Member

Compendium April 2012 (Vol 34, No 4)

Nosocomial Infections

by Reid K. Nakamura, DVM, DACVECC, Emily Tompkins, DVM

    CETEST This course is approved for 3.0 CE credits

    Start Test


    Nosocomial infections (NIs) are infections acquired during hospitalization. They are characterized by a high incidence of antimicrobial resistance. The most common NIs are pneumonia and urinary tract, surgical site, and bloodstream infections. Hand hygiene has demonstrated efficacy in reducing NIs.

    Nosocomial infections (NIs) are infections acquired by patients during hospitalization. An estimated 5% to 10% of human patients admitted to hospitals develop an NI.1 Among identified pathogens in human intensive care units (ICUs), 70% are resistant to at least one antimicrobial.2 In 2008, 64% of biosecurity experts at veterinary teaching hospitals believed that the risk of NI among their patients had increased in the preceding 10 years.3 Between 2003 and 2008, 82% of veterinary teaching hospitals reported outbreaks of NIs and 45% reported more than one NI outbreak.3 In human medicine, urinary tract infections (UTIs), pneumonia, surgical site infections (SSIs), and bloodstream infections (BSIs) account for approximately 80% of all NIs.4 This article reviews the most common NIs, the human and veterinary literature for each type of infection, and the diagnostic and treatment protocols as well as prevention strategies.

    Urinary Tract Infections

    UTIs are the most common NIs in human hospitals. They account for up to 40% of all human NIs5 and are typically associated with the placement of a urinary catheter during hospitalization, resulting in catheter-associated UTIs (CAUTIs). Many patients with nosocomial bacteriuria are asymptomatic, and these patients are of concern because they are a major reservoir of antimicrobial-resistant organisms.6

    Key Points

    • A diagnosis of CAUTI can only be made on the basis of sterile cystocentesis, as a study demonstrated poor agreement between culture results of urine samples and urinary catheter tips.
    • Use of histamine blockers and proton-pump inhibitors increases gram-negative colonization of the oropharyngeal tract, increasing the risk of HAP due to these organisms in people.
    • Infection rates in humans nearly double with every hour the patient spends in surgery.
    • IV catheters should be removed as early as medically indicated, but routine catheter changes should be avoided unless there is evidence of an infection.
    • Studies have shown a temporal relationship between improved hand hygiene and decreased infection rates.
    • Less than 50% of small animal veterinarians and less than 20% of large animal and equine veterinarians wash their hands between patient contacts.

    The frequency of CAUTI in veterinary studies varies from 10% to 38% of hospitalized dogs.7–11 However, differences between studies with regard to the signalment of enrolled animals, duration of catheterization, and use of antimicrobials make comparison of results difficult.7–11 Studies in small animal patients in 198512 and 19888 demonstrated that even when a closed collection system is used, bacteriuria develops in 32% to 52% of cases. A more recent study13 found that the incidence of nosocomial bacteriuria in dogs with open urine collection systems was not significantly different from those in dogs with closed systems for short periods of catheterization, provided that a strict hygiene protocol was practiced for placement and management of the urinary catheter.


    Normally, the length of the urethra and unidirectional flow of urine prevent upward migration of microorganisms into the bladder. In addition, the urinary mucosa secretes inhibitors of bacterial adhesion, preventing attachment of pathogens. Several characteristics of urine, including osmolality, pH, and the presence of organic acids, inhibit the growth of microorganisms. The use of urinary catheters interferes with these defense mechanisms, allowing pathogens to colonize the urinary tract14,15 by ascending into the bladder on either the extraluminal or intraluminal surface of the catheter.16 Microorganisms may enter the bladder extraluminally either at the time of catheter insertion or by ascending the mucous film surrounding the external aspect of the urinary catheter and are typically endogenous to the patient, arising from the rectum or perineum. Alternatively, microorganisms may migrate intraluminally, which typically occurs when the internal lumen of the catheter is colonized either through failure of a closed drainage system or contamination of the drainage bag. Bacteriuria in this setting often involves multidrug-resistant organisms. In one human study,16 extraluminal migration was most likely in two-thirds of cases of NI, with intraluminal migration most likely among the remainder.

    Biofilms are composed of clusters of microorganisms and extracellular matrix (primarily polysaccharide materials) and form readily on the extraluminal and intraluminal surfaces of urinary catheters.15 Biofilms are typically composed of only one type of microorganism, although polymicrobial biofilms are possible.17 Antimicrobials tend to penetrate poorly into biofilms, and microorganisms grow more slowly in biofilms, rendering many antimicrobials less effective.18,19


    According to the National Healthcare Safety Network, there are two possible definitions for CAUTI (BOX 1).4 However, the diagnostic sensitivity is questionable because symptoms associated with UTI are reported in only 10% of humans with CAUTI.6 Fever is common in the ICU, but UTI is rarely the cause.20 Pyuria is also not a reliable indicator of UTI in the setting of catheterization because up to 30% of catheterized patients have pyuria, even in the absence of bacteriuria.21

    Box 1. Criteria for Diagnosis of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections in Humans4

    1. Positive urine culture growing >105 colony-forming units/mL, with no more than two microorganism species


    Signs of urinary tract infection:

    • Fever
    • Urgency
    • Frequency
    • Dysuria


    2. Two of the following signs:

    • Fever
    • Urgency
    • Frequency
    • Dysuria


    One of the following laboratory findings:

    • Positive gram stain of a urine sample
    • Pyuria (>3 white blood cells/high-power field)
    • Two urine cultures with >102 colony-forming units/mL of a single pathogen in a patient being treated with antimicrobials
    Diagnosis of CAUTI in veterinary patients can only be made on the basis of sterile cystocentesis, as a study demonstrated poor agreement between culture results from urine collected via a sterile infusion plug and those from urine collected from urinary catheter tips.7 Both antimicrobial-sensitive7 and antimicrobial-resistant8,9 organisms have been identified in CAUTI in various veterinary studies, and adjustment of antimicrobials should be dictated by culture results. The use of systemic antimicrobials during catheterization of small animals may decrease the frequency of CAUTIs, but the infections that develop tend to have increased antimicrobial resistance.22


    In humans, bacteriuria commonly resolves spontaneously after urinary catheter removal; however, it can persist and lead to a UTI. Consequently, humans are screened for persistent bacteriuria 48 hours after catheter removal, and treatment is initiated if bacteriuria persists.23 Because of the presence of biofilm, leaving the catheter in place makes it difficult to eradicate bacteriuria and can lead to the development of antimicrobial resistance.24 Therefore, the urinary catheter must be removed when treating a CAUTI.

    Strategies for Prevention

    The most effective strategy for prevention of CAUTIs is avoidance of urinary catheterization unless absolutely necessary.25 Appropriate indications for urinary catheter placement in humans are summarized in BOX225; these indications may also be applicable to veterinary species. Inappropriate use of urinary catheters in human hospitals is reported in up to 50% of hospitalized patients.26,27 Such an evaluation has not been performed in veterinary patients, although it is reasonable to assume that overuse of urinary catheters occurs in the veterinary setting as well.

    Box 2. Indications for Placement of Urinary Catheters in Humans25,a

    • Accurate monitoring of urine output in a critically ill patient
    • Acute anatomic or functional urinary retention or obstruction
    • Perioperative use for selected surgical procedures (long anticipated duration of surgery, urologic procedures, need for intraoperative monitoring of urine output)
    • Urinary incontinence in patients with open wounds that may be contaminated with urine
    • Patient comfort for end-of-life care

    aUrinary incontinence alone is not an indication for catheterization.

    CAUTIs can also be minimized by limiting the duration and frequency of catheterization and adhering strictly to aseptic technique and hygiene. Breaks in aseptic technique during catheter placement and disruption of the closed system are the most significant factors in the development of CAUTIs.20 The collection system should not be raised above the level of the patient, and the collecting lines should not be flushed because urine in the line and bag must be considered contaminated. The collecting bag should remain below the level of the bladder to prevent reflux of urine into the bladder and should be emptied routinely. Unobstructed urine flow should be maintained at all times.28


    Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is defined as pneumonia that develops more than 48 hours after hospital admission in the absence of any signs of infection at the time of admission.29 HAP may increase a human patient’s hospital stay by more than a week and mortality by three-fold.29 HAP is 20 times more likely to occur in ventilated patients than in nonventilated patients and can occur in up to one-third of patients requiring mechanical ventilation.29


    The pathogenesis of HAP is multifactorial. Severe illness and hemodynamic compromise have been associated with increased rates of HAP.30 Supine position greatly increases aspiration risk and has been demonstrated to increase the rate of HAP among hospitalized human patients.31 Use of gastric ulcer prophylaxis such as histamine blockers and proton-pump inhibitors is associated with increased gram-negative colonization of the oropharyngeal tract, increasing the risk of HAP in people.29 Endotracheal and nasogastric tubes also increase the risk of HAP by acting as physical conduits for the migration of pathogens to the lower respiratory tract.29

    Only one study32 examining nosocomial pneumonia—as a complication of positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) in cats—has been reported in the veterinary literature. In this study, pneumonia was identified in 14 cats, eight of which fulfilled the criteria for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The most common organisms identified included Escherichia coli (10) and Acinetobacter spp (6), and multiple organisms were identified in approximately half of the cases. The authors did not differentiate between organisms identified in patients with pneumonia and in patients with VAP, and susceptibility testing was not reported in this study. The incidence of VAP was significantly higher in survivors than in nonsurvivors, which the authors attributed to the length of time spent on positive-pressure ventilation.32

    Although aspiration pneumonia does not meet the strict definitions of HAP in people, the incidence of aspiration pneumonia in postoperative hospitalized dogs has been reported in a variety of studies.33–37 However, most of these studies did not examine the effect of aspiration pneumonia on morbidity and mortality. Conditions described in the veterinary literature that increase the risk of aspiration pneumonia are shown in BOX 3; some are similar to risk factors for HAP in people.33–45 A recent study on aspiration pneumonia in dogs46 reported that half of the patients were receiving H2 blockers for gastric ulcer prophylaxis, although it is unclear what role the use of H2 blockers played in the development of aspiration pneumonia. The most common organisms identified were Mycoplasma, Pasteurella, and Staphylococcus spp, as well as E. coli; antibiotic sensitivities were not reported. The survival rate for dogs with aspiration pneumonia has been reported to be good in two retrospective studies from veterinary academic facilities.46,47

    Box 3. Conditions That Increase Risk of Aspiration Pneumonia in Small Animals33–45

    • Laryngeal or esophageal disorders
    • Decreased mentation or recumbency from neurologic disease
    • Recent sedation or anesthesia
    • Long-distance physical exertion
    • Use of feeding tubes


    Based on current human guidelines for the identification of HAP (BOX 4), HAP should be suspected in any patient that develops depression, fever, leukocytosis, and cough or dyspnea after periods of vomiting or intubation.4,29 However, clinical findings such as fever, leukocytosis, and purulent secretions are known to occur in noninfectious pulmonary conditions (e.g., atelectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome) in people; therefore, they lack specificity for the diagnosis of HAP.48,49 Similarly, findings on chest radiographs can be nonspecific, as a study found that no radiographic sign correlated well with the presence of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated humans.50Air bronchograms were the only radiographic sign that correlated with autopsy-verified pneumonia, but this sign correctly predicted only 64% of cases.50


    When pneumonia is suspected, a sample of bronchial secretions should be obtained and empiric antimicrobial therapy initiated until antimicrobial sensitivity results are available. In veterinary patients, it is imperative to collect samples from the pulmonary parenchyma, as one study found bacterial organisms identified on deep oral swabs are inconsistent with organisms identified in tracheal wash samples in dogs.51Empiric treatment with third- or fourth-generation cephalosporins, monobactams (aztreonam), piperacillin-tazobactam, or imipenem-cilastatin is recommended in human patients with nosocomial pneumonia.52 This strategy has been shown to improve outcome in human studies but eventually promotes colonization by multidrug-resistant pathogens.53

    Box 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Healthcare Safety Network Criteria for Probable Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia4,29

    Two or more serial chest radiographs (in patients without underlying pulmonary or cardiac disease, one definitive chest radiograph is acceptable) with at least one of the following:

    • New or progressive and persistent infiltration
    • Consolidation
    • Cavitation


    At least one of the following clinical criteria:

    • Fever with no other recognized cause for fever
    • Leukopenia or leukocytosis
    • Altered mental status with no identifiable cause


    At least two of the following criteria:

    • New onset of purulent sputum, change in character of sputum, increased respiratory secretions, or increased suctioning requirements
    • New onset or worsening cough, or dyspnea, or tachypnea
    • Rales or bronchial breath sounds
    • Worsening gas exchange, increased oxygen requirements, or increased ventilator demand

    It is important for clinicians to recognize that the predominant pathogens associated with hospital-acquired infections may vary between hospitals as well as among specialized units within the same hospital.54,55 Consequently, routine surveillance is recommended to determine the most common nosocomial pathogens in individual hospitals.54,55 Failure to treat VAP with an appropriate initial antimicrobial regimen has resulted in significantly higher rates of septic shock and hospital mortality in people.56–58 Additionally, treatment delays of >24 hours after identifying diagnostic criteria for VAP have been associated with statistically higher rates of bacteremia and in-hospital mortality.59 Rapid diagnosis and institution of therapy are critical to a successful outcome for patients with HAP.

    Surgical Site Infections

    SSIs are the third most common type of NI in human medicine,60 prolonging hospitalization and contributing significantly to the morbidity and mortality of affected human patients.61 The duration of the surgical procedure has been cited as the most important contributor to the development of SSIs in people and animals, with infection rates in humans nearly doubling with every hour the patient spends in surgery.62,63 A veterinary study found that nosocomial SSIs increased the duration of postoperative and total hospitalization.64 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has developed standardized criteria for diagnosing SSIs in people (TABLE 1).65


    Microbial contamination of the surgical site is a necessary precursor of SSI. It has been shown that if a surgical site is contaminated with >105 microorganisms per gram of tissue, the risk of SSI is markedly increased.66 For most SSIs, the source of pathogens is endogenous flora of the patient’s skin, mucous membranes, or hollow viscera.67 Gram-negative bacteria produce endotoxin, which stimulates cytokine production and can trigger systemic inflammatory response syndrome, resulting in multiple organ dysfunction.68,69 Gram-positive bacteria produce glycocalyx and an associated component called slime, which physically shields the bacteria from phagocytes or inhibits the binding or penetration of antimicrobial agents.70–72

    Risk Factors

    A comparison of risk factors for SSI in people and veterinary patients is listed in TABLE 2 .62–65,73–79 In veterinary species, intact male status was identified as a risk factor for SSIs, which was speculated to be related to depressed cytokine production in intact males compared with castrated males.78  In another veterinary study, concurrent endocrinopathies were also associated with an increased risk of SSIs due to depressed natural killer cell and lymphocyte number and function in animals with endocrine disorders.74 Prophylactic antimicrobials are indicated in many surgical procedures, but they should be limited to the immediate perioperative period in most cases. A study64 found that dogs receiving perioperative antimicrobials when subjected to clean-contaminated surgical procedures were six to seven times less likely to develop an SSI than patients without antimicrobial prophylaxis. However, another study concluded that the postoperative infection rate was increased in small animals receiving prolonged postoperative antimicrobials compared with those receiving only perioperative antimicrobials.73 First-generation cephalosporin antimicrobials are commonly selected for perioperative use because they have excellent activity against Staphylococcus spp and E. coli. They also have minimal toxicity and are beneficial for use in the perioperative period.64


    Coagulase-positive staphylococci are the most common isolates in reports of SSIs in small animal patients.77 Samples for culture should be collected at the time of definitive therapy for the SSI, particularly if the patient is already receiving antimicrobials, as the possibility of the development of a multidrug-resistant organism increases with previous antimicrobial use. The goal of surgery in the treatment of an SSI should be to reduce the load of microorganisms, remove necrotic tissue, and maintain adequate tissue perfusion.79


    In human medicine, shaving before surgery is advised against because any method of hair removal can damage the epithelium, allowing bacterial colonization, and shaving has been shown to increase SSI rates.80 Leaving hair and fur in the surgical field is not a viable option for most veterinary patients, but clipping the surgical site should be performed as late as possible, as shaving the night before surgery has been associated with higher SSI rates in humans.81,82 Similarly, a study in dogs and cats found higher SSI rates when clipping was performed before induction of anesthesia compared with after induction.73 In addition, the clipper blades should be cleaned and, ideally, sterilized between uses because more frequent use without sterilization increases bacterial colonization of clipper blades.83

    Because duration of surgery is an important risk factor for the development of SSIs in veterinary patients, short surgical times are essential to reduced SSI complication rates.64,73,74 However, poor surgical technique is associated with increased SSI rates in people.65 Consequently, every effort must be made to keep surgical times as brief as possible without compromising quality of technique.

    Bloodstream Infections

    The incidence of BSIs in human hospitals has steadily increased in the past 2 decades, and most BSIs are related to intravascular devices, particularly central venous catheters (CVCs).84 BSIs are associated with a high fatality rate, exceeding 25% in some reports.85 Duration of catheterization is the most important risk factor for the development of catheter-related BSIs (CR-BSIs),86 with most infections developing after 4 to 5 days.87

    Bacterial contamination of catheters in critically ill animals has been speculated to increase morbidity and mortality rates, as bacterial colonization is considered a precursor to catheter-related infection.88 In a study of 88 critically ill dogs, the incidence of bacterial colonization of IV catheters ranged from 15% to 48%, and the most common organisms isolated included E. coli and Aerobacter, Proteus, and Klebsiella spp.88 Another study of animals in a small animal ICU reported that 26% of jugular catheters were positive for bacterial growth; enteric organisms were most commonly isolated.8 Two other studies reported colonization rates of 7% in dogs and cats receiving total parenteral nutrition89 and 22% of dogs with parvovirus.90 More recently, a study on IV catheters from dogs and cats hospitalized for at least 24 hours in the ICU found a positive culture rate of 24.5%, with Enterobacter spp being the most common organisms identified (46%).91 Several risk factors were examined, including catheter type, location, duration, and blood sampling from the catheter, but none was associated with increased risk of CR-BSI. In human medicine, the organisms most often implicated in CR-BSI are skin commensals, whereas in veterinary patients they are typically enteric and environmental organisms.8,88–90 Previously, outbreaks of CR-BSIs in veterinary hospitals have been linked to inadequate skin preparation,88 contaminated gauze squares,92 and other, unidentified vehicles.93

    Diagnosis and Treatment

    If a catheter infection is suspected, the catheter should be removed using sterile technique, and the tip of the catheter should be submitted for bacterial culture and sensitivity testing in conjunction with blood samples from central and peripheral sites.94 Initial antimicrobial therapy should be broad spectrum, particularly if a life-threatening bacteremia is suspected. However, veterinary studies have reported a high incidence of resistant organisms colonizing intravenous catheters, characterized by high levels of resistance to penicillin, cloxacillin, erythromycin, and cephalexin.90 It is rare for CR-BSIs to be associated with inflammatory signs at the insertion site,95 but when present, these signs are reliable predictors.96 Clinicians should consider the diagnosis of CR-BSI in patients with fever, hypotension, leukocytosis, or other signs of sepsis. A definitive diagnosis is made when the same organism is cultured from a percutaneous blood sample and the catheter tip.94 The antimicrobial selection should be narrowed when culture results are available.94


    A number of studies have attempted to determine the optimal agent for skin cleansing before CVC insertion and at times of CVC manipulation. Chlorhexidine is thought to have a theoretical advantage over povidone-iodine because it has a prolonged time of antimicrobial effect and because it is not inactivated by exposure to protein-rich fluids such as blood and serum.97,98 A 2002 meta-analysis examined eight randomized trials comparing various types of chlorhexidine and iodine solutions and found that use of chlorhexidine solutions had less than half the risk of catheter colonization and CR-BSI.99 There is also evidence that alcohol and chlorhexidine may have synergistic activity against bacteria in vitro.100 TABLE 3 lists characteristics of commonly used agents for skin cleansing in veterinary patients.97–100

    A number of studies comparing transparent and gauze dressings in humans have been performed, some showing no difference and others suggesting increased risk of infection with transparent dressings.101–103 These conflicting results have allowed for continued use of gauze and transparent gauze dressings depending on institutional preferences. The ideal interval between dressing changes depends primarily on the type of dressing used. The use of gauze dressings changed every 2 days appears equivalent to the use of transparent dressings changed every 5 days with regard to rate of colonization and is the most recommended standard of care.102

    A number of trials have examined whether the use of prophylactic antibiotics at the time of catheter insertion has any effect on infection rates.104–106 None demonstrated any reduction in episodes of CR-BSI, and a 2005 Cochrane review concluded that there was no role for prophylactic antibiotics at the time of CVC insertion.107

    Despite the increased risk of infection with prolonged catheterization, studies in human patients have indicated that prophylactic catheter changes every 3 days versus every 7 days did not decrease the incidence of catheter-related bacterial colonization.108 These studies have led to the current recommendation in human medicine that catheters be removed as early as medically indicated but that routine catheter changes be avoided unless there is evidence of an infection.108 A prospective veterinary study showed that intravenous catheters can remain in place for more than 3 days (up to 10 days based on study limitations) in a peripheral vein provided that strict aseptic technique is observed during placement and catheter care is vigilant.92

    Hand Hygiene for Prevention of Nosocomial Infections

    Results of human studies indicate that at least one-third of all NIs are preventable.109 Nosocomial pathogens have been shown to persist in the hospital environment on items such as stethoscopes,110 computer keyboards, and faucet handles.111 However, evidence that disinfection of environmental surfaces influences NI rate is lacking. A review of scientific articles and abstracts investigating the effect of environmental disinfection on NI rates failed to demonstrate a relationship between routine disinfection of surfaces (mainly floors) with lower infection rates.109 We do not recommend that disinfection of environmental surfaces in the hospital be abandoned, but rather that efforts to limit NI should be directed by more proven measures, specifically hand hygiene.

    The hands of health care workers (HCWs) are the primary vehicle of transmission of NIs to patients.112 Therefore, hand hygiene is a key component in the prevention of NI.112 HCWs can contaminate their hands even by performing so-called “clean procedures,” such as lifting a patient; taking a patient’s pulse, blood pressure, or temperature; or touching intact areas of a hospitalized patient’s skin.113–115 HCWs may also contaminate their hands after touching inanimate objects.115–117 Several outbreaks of NIs have been associated with HCWs’ hands.118–120 Indications for hand hygiene are listed in BOX 5.121

    Box 5. Indications for Hand Hygiene121

    • Before and after touching the patient
    • Before handling an invasive device for patient care, regardless of whether gloves are used
    • After contact with body fluids or excretions, mucous membranes, nonintact skin, or wound dressings
    • If moving from a contaminated body site to another body site during care of the same patient
    • After contact with inanimate surfaces and objects (including medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the patient
    • After removing sterile or nonsterile gloves

    The purpose of routine hand hygiene in patient care is to remove dirt and organic material. Hand washing refers to the application of a plain (nonantimicrobial) or antiseptic (antimicrobial) soap. This method of cleaning mechanically removes dirt (soiled and organic substances) and loosely adherent flora from the hands. Plain soaps have minimal or no antimicrobial activity.122 In contrast to hand washing, alcohol-based hand rubs rapidly reduce skin flora by killing as alcohols denature proteins.123 Alcohols have excellent in vitro activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and a variety of fungi, but they have poor activity against protozoan oocysts, nonenveloped viruses, and bacterial spores.123–125 A review of effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions for hand hygiene showed that alcohol-based hand rubs remove more organisms more effectively, require less time, and irritate the skin less than hand washing with soap or other antiseptics and water.126 Consequently, in 2002, the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guidelines defined alcohol-based hand rubs as the standard of care for hand hygiene in health care settings.127

    Studies have shown that improving hand hygiene decreases NI rates.127 However, compliance with hand washing protocols in human hospitals remains poor.128 This is consistent with a veterinary study that showed that <50% of small animal veterinarians and <20% of large animal and equine veterinarians wash their hands between patient contacts.129 In addition, sustained improvements in hand washing are difficult and require ongoing monitoring of compliance.128 Guidance for the implementation of effective hand hygiene campaigns is available at the CDC Web site (www.cdc.gov/handhygiene).


    NIs cause a significant increase in morbidity and mortality in human medicine, and awareness of NI is increasing in veterinary medicine. Adherence to recommendations for the prevention, identification, and management of specific NIs can help improve outcomes for veterinary patients. The most important factor in preventing NIs is hand hygiene, which has been shown to dramatically reduce transmission of bacteria between hospitalized patients.

    Downloadable PDF


    1. Burke JP. Infection control—a problem for patient safety. N Engl J Med 2003;348(7):651-656.

    2. Eggimann P, Pittet D. Infection control in the ICU. Chest 2001;120(6):2059-2093.

    3. Benedict KM, Morley PS, Van Metre DC. Characteristics of biosecurity and infection control programs of veterinary teaching hospitals. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233(5):767-773.

    4. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Healthcare Safety Network surveillance definition of healthcare-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infection in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(5):309-332.

    5. Meares EM. Current patterns in nosocomial urinary tract infections. Urology 1991;37(suppl 3):9-12.

    6. Tambyah PA, Maki DG. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection is rarely symptomatic: a prospective study of 1497 catheterized patients. Arch Intern Med 2000;160(5):678-682.

    7. Smarick SD, Haskins SC, Aldrich J, et al. Incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infection among dogs in a small animal intensive care unit. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;224(12):1936-1940.

    8. Lippert AC, Fulton RB, Parr AM. Nosocomial infection surveillance in a small animal intensive care unit. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1988;24:627-636.

    9. Ogeer-Gyles J, Mathews K, Weese JS, et al. Evaluation of catheter-associated urinary tract infections and multi-drug resistant Escherichia coli isolates from the urine of dogs with indwelling urinary catheters. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006;229(10):1584-1590.

    10. Biertuempfel PH, Ling GV, Ling GA. Urinary tract infections resulting from catheterization in healthy adult dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1981;178(9):989-991.

    11. Wise LA, Jones RL, Reif JS. Nosocomial urinary tract infections in a veterinary teaching hospital (1983-1988). J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1988;24:627-637.

    12. Barsanti JA, Blue J, Edmunds J. Urinary tract infections due to indwelling bladder catheters in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985;187(4):384-388.

    13. Sullivan LA, Campbell VL, Onuma SC. Evaluation of open versus closed urine collection systems and development of nosocomial bacteriuria in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010;237(2):187-190.

    14. Warren JW. Catheter-asociated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2001;17(4):299-303.

    15. Saint S, Chenoweth CE. Biofilms and catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2003;17(2):411-432.

    16. Tambyah PA, Halvorson KT, Maki DG. A prospective study of pathogenesis of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Mayo Clin Proc 1999;74(2):131-136.

    17. Stamm WE. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections: epidemiology, pathogensis and prevention. Am J Med 1991;91(3B):65S-71S.

    18. Donlan RM. Role of biofilms in antimicrobial resistance. ASAIO J 2000;46(6):S47-S52.

    19. Choong S, Whitfield H. Biofilms and their role in infections in urology. BJU Int 2000;86(8):935-941.

    20. Warren JW, Platt R, Thomas RJ, et al. Antimicrobial irrigation and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. N Engl J Med 1978;299(11):570-573.

    21. Musher DM, Thorsteinsson SB, Airola VM II. Quantitative urinalysis. Diagnosing urinary tract infection in men. JAMA 1976;236(18):2069-2072.

    22. Lees GE, Osborne CA, Stevens JB, Ward GE. Adverse effects of open indwelling urethral catheterization in clinically normal male cats. Am J Vet Res 1981;42(5):825-833.

    23. Nicolle LE, Bradley S, Colgan R, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40(5):643-654.

    24. Raz R, Schiller D, Nicolle LE. Chronic indwelling catheter replacement before antimicrobial therapy for symptomatic urinary tract infection. J Urol 2000;164(4):1254-1258.

    25. Nicolle LE. The prevention of hospital-acquired urinary tract infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46(2):251-253.

    26. Jain P, Parada JP, David A, Smith LG. Overuse of the indwelling urinary tract catheter in hospitalized medical patients. Arch Intern Med 1995;155(13):1425-1429.

    27. Munasinghe RL, Yazdani H, Siddique M, Hafeez W. Appropriateness of use of indwelling urinary catheters in patients admitted to the medical service. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22(10):647-649.

    28. Lo E, Nicolle L, Classen D, et al. Strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(suppl 1):S41-S50.

    29. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated and health-care associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005;171(4):388-416.

    30. von Dossow V, Rotard K, Redlich U, et al. Circulating immune parameters predicting progression from hospital-acquired pneumonia to septic shock in surgical patients. Crit Care 2005;9(6):R662-R669.

    31. Drakulovic MB, Torres A, Bauer TT, et al. Supine body position as a risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomized trial. Lancet 1999;354(9193):1851-1858.

    32. Lee JA, Drobatz KJ, Koch MW, King LG. Indications for and outcome of positive-pressure ventilation in cats: 53 cases (1993-2002). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;226(6):924-931.

    33. MacPhail C, Monnet E. Outcome of and postoperative complications in dogs undergoing surgical treatment of laryngeal paralysis: 140 cases (1985-1998). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001;218(12):1949-1956.

    34. Alwood AJ, Brainard BM, LaFond E, et al. Postoperative pulmonary complications in dogs undergoing laparotomy: frequency, characterization and disease-related risk factors. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2006;16(3):176-183.

    35. Brainard BM, Alwood AJ, Kushner LI, et al. Postoperative pulmonary complications in dogs undergoing laparotomy: anesthetic and perioperative factors. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2006;16(3):184-191.

    36. Java MA, Drobatz KJ, Gilley RS, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for postoperative pneumonia in dogs anesthetized for diagnosis or treatment of intervertebral disk disease. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009;235(3):281-287.

    37. Fransson BA, Bagley RS, Gay JM, et al. Pneumonia after intracranial surgery in dogs. Vet Surg 2001;30(5):432-439.

    38. Lorinson D, Bright RM, White RAS. Brachycephalic airway obstruction syndrome—a review of 118 cases. Canine Pract 1997;22(5-6):18-21.

    39. Dewey CW, Bailey CS, Shelton GD, et al. Clinical forms of acquired myasthenia gravis in dogs: 25 cases (1988-1995). J Vet Intern Med 1997;11(2):50-57.

    40. Miller LM, Lennon VA, Lambert EH, et al. Congenital myasthenia gravis in 13 smooth fox terriers. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1983;182(7):694-697.

    41. Wilson DV, Walshaw R. Postanesthetic esophageal dysfunction in 13 dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2004;40(6):455-460.

    42. Leib MS, Baechtel MS, Monroe WE. Complications associated with 355 flexible colonoscopic procedures in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2004;18(5):642-646.

    43. Dennis MM, Nelson SN, Cantor GH, et al. Assessment of necropsy findings in sled dogs that died during Iditarod Trail sled dog races: 23 cases (1994-2006). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;232(4):564-573.

    44. Amstrong PJ, Hardie EM. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. A retrospective study of 54 clinical cases in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med 1990;4(4):202-206.

    45. Campbell SJ, Marks SL, Yoshimoto SK, et al. Complications and outcomes of one-step low-profile gastrostomy devices for long-term enteral feeding in dogs and cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2006;42(3):197-206.

    46. Tart KM, Babski DM, Lee JA. Potential risks, prognostic indicators, and diagnostic and treatment modalities affecting survival in dogs with presumptive aspiration pneumonia: 125 cases (2005-2008). J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2010;20(3):319-329.

    47. Kogan DA, Johnson LR, Sturges BK, et al. Etiology and clinical outcome in dogs with aspiration pneumonia: 88 cases (2004-2006). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233(11):1748-1755.

    48. Fàbregas N, Ewig S, Torres A, et al. Clinical diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia revisited: comparative validation using immediate post-mortem lung biopsies. Thorax 1999;54(10):867-873.

    49. Rea-Neto A, Youssef NC, Tuche F, et al. Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care 2008;12(2):R56.

    50. Wunderink RG, Woldenberg LS, Zeiss J, et al. The radiologic diagnosis of autopsy-proven ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 1992;101(2):458-463.

    51. Sumner CM, Rozanski EA, Sharp CR, Shaw SP. The use of deep oral swabs as a surrogate for transoral tracheal wash to obtain bacterial cultures in dogs with pneumonia. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2011;21(5):515-520.

    52. Zanetti G, Bally F, Greub G, et al. Cefepine versus imipenem-cilastatin for treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care patients: a multicenter, evaluate-blind, prospective, randomized study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003;47(11):3442-3447.

    53. Craven DE, De Rosa FG, Thornton D. Nosocomial pneumonia: emerging concepts in diagnosis, management, and prophylaxis. Curr Opin Crit Care 2002;8(5):421-429.

    54. Namias N, Samiian L, Nino D, et al. Incidence and susceptibility of pathogenic bacteria vary between intensive care units within a single hospital: implications for empiric antibiotic strategies. J Trauma 2000;49(4):638-645.

    55. Rello J, Sa-Borges M, Correa H, et al. Variations in etiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia across four treatment sites: implications for antimicrobial prescribing practices. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160(2):608-613.

    56. Kollef MH, Ward S. The influence of mini-BAL cultures on patient outcomes: implications for the antibiotic management of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 1998;113(2):412-420.

    57. Luna CM, Vujacich P, Niederman MS, et al. Impact of BAL data on the therapy and outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 1997;111(3):676-685.

    58. Alvarez-Lerma F. Modification of empiric antibiotic treatment in patients with pneumonia acquired in the intensive care unit. ICU-Acquired Pneumonia Study Group. Intensive Care Med 1996;22(5):387-394.

    59. Iregui M, Ward S, Sherman G, et al. Clinical importance of delays in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2002;122(1):262-268.

    60. Solomkin JS. Antimicrobial resistance in postoperative infections. Crit Care Med 2001;29(suppl 4):N97-N99.

    61. Brachman PS, Dan BB, Haley RW, et al. Nosocomial surgical infections: incidence and cost. Surg Clin North Am 1980;60(1):15-25.

    62. Cruse PJ, Foord R. A five-year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg 1973;107(2):206-210.

    63. Beal MW, Brown DC, Shofer FS. The effects of perioperative hypothermia and the duration of anesthesia on postoperative wound infection rate in clean wounds: a retrospective study. Vet Surg 2000;29(2):123-127.

    64. Eugster S, Schawalder P, Gaschen F, Boerlin P. Prospective study of postoperative surgical site infections in dogs and cats. Vet Surg 2004;33(5):542-550.

    65. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1999;27(2):97-132.

    66. Krizek TJ, Robson MC. Evolution of quantitative bacteriology in wound management. Am J Surg 1975;130(5):579-584.

    67. Altemeier WA, Culbertson WR, Hummel RP. Surgical considerations of endogenous infections—sources, types and methods of control. Surg Clin North Am 196;48(1):227-240.

    68. Morrison DC, Ryan JL. Endotoxins and disease mechanisms. Annu Rev Med 1987;38:417-432.

    69. Demling R, LaLonde C, Saldinger P, Knox J. Multiple-organ dysfunction in the surgical patient: pathophysiology, prevention and treatment. Curr Probl Surg 1993;30(4):345-414.

    70. Bergamini TM, Corpus RA Jr, Brittian KR, et al. The natural history of bacterial biofilm graft infection. J Surg Res 1994;56(5):393-396.

    71. Christensen GD, Baddour LM, Simpson WA. Phenotypic variation of Staphylocccus epidermidis slime production in vitro and in vivo. Infect Immun 1987;55(12):2870-2877.

    72. Mayberry-Carson KJ, Tober-Meyer B, Smith JK, et al. Bacterial adherence and glycocalyx formation in osteomyelitis experimentally induced Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Immun 1984;43(3):825-833.

    73. Brown D, Conzemius M, Shofer FS, Swann H. Epidemiologic evaluation of postoperative wound infections in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997;210(9):1302-1306.

    74. Nicholson M, Beal MW, Shofer FS, Brown DC. Epidemiologic evaluation of postoperative wound infection in clean-contaminated wounds: a retrospective study of 239 dogs and cats. Vet Surg 2002;31(6):577-581.

    75. Heldman E, Brown DC, Shofer FS. The association of propofol usage with postoperative wound infection rate in clean wounds: a retrospective study. Vet Surg 1999;28(4):256-259.

    76. Whittem TL, Johnson AL, Smith CW, et al. Effects of perioperative prophylactic antimicrobial treatment in dogs undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999;215(2):212-216.

    77. Vasseur PB, Levy J, Dowd E, Eliot J. Surgical wound infection rates in dogs and cats. Data from a teaching hospital. Vet Surg 1988;17(2):60-64.

    78. Vasseur PB, Paul HA, Enos LR, Hirsh DC. Infection rates in clean surgical procedures: a comparison of ampicillin prophylaxis vs a placebo. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985;187(8):825-827.

    79. Nichols RL. Preventing surgical site infections: a surgeon’s perspective. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7(2):220-224.

    80. Winston KR. Hair and neurosurgery. Neurosurgery 1992;31(2):320-329.

    81. Hamilton HW, Hamilton KR, Lone FJ. Preoperative hair removal. Can J Surg 1977;20(3):269-271.

    82. Seropian R, Reynolds BM. Wound infection after preoperative depilatory versus razor preparation. Am J Surg 1971;121(3):251-254.

    83. Masterson TM, Rodeheaver GT, Morgan RF, Edlich RF. Bacteriologic evaluation of electric clippers for surgical hair removal. Am J Surg 1984;148(3):301-302.

    84. Pittet D, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infections. Secular trends in rates, mortality, and contribution to total hospital deaths. Arch Intern Med 1995;155(11):1174-1184.

    85. Mermel LA.Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 2000;132(5):391-402.

    86. Fry DE, Fry RV, Borzotta AP. Nosocomial blood-borne infection secondary to intravenous devices. Am J Surg 1994;167(2):268-272.

    87. Collins RN, Brown PA, Zinner SH, Kass EH. Risk of local and systemic infection with polyethylene intravenous catheters: a prospective study of 213 catheterizations. N Engl J Med 1968;279(7):340-343.

    88. Burrows CF. Inadequate skin preparation as a cause of intravenous catheter-related infection in the dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1982;180(7):747-749.

    89. Lippert AC, Fulton RB, Parr AM. A retrospective study of the use of total parenteral nutrition in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med 1993;7(2):52-64.

    90. Lobetti RG, Joubert KE, Picard J, et al. Bacterial colonization of intravenous catheters in young dogs suspected to have parvoviral enteritis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220(9):1321-1324.

    91. Marsh-Ng ML, Burney DP, Garcia J. Surveillance of infections associated with intravenous catheters in dogs and cats in an intensive care unit. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2007;43(1):13-20.

    92. Mathews KA, Brooks MJ, Valliant AE. A prospective study of intravenous catheter contamination. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 1996;6(1):33-43.

    93. Wilkins RJ. Serratia marcescens septicemia in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1973;14(4):205-215.

    94. Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49(1):1-45.

    95. Safdar N, Maki DG. Inflammation at the insertion site is not predictive of catheter-related bloodstream infection with short-term, non-cuffed central venous catheters. Crit Care Med 2002;30(12):2632-2635.

    96. Armstrong CW, Mayhall GC, Miller KB, et al. Clinical predictor of infection of central venous catheters used for total parenteral nutrition. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11:71-78.

    97. Ayliffe GA. Surgical scrub and skin disinfection. Infect Control 1984;5(1):23-27.

    98. Lowbury EJ, Lilly HA. The effect of blood on disinfection of surgeons’ hands. Br J Surg 1974;61(1):19-21.

    99. Chaiyakunapruk N, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, Saint S. Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2002;136(11):792-801.

    100. Richards RM, McBride RJ. Enhancement of benzalkonium chloride and chlorhexidine acetate activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa by aromatic alcohol. J Pharm Sci 1973;62(12):2035-2037.

    101. Maki DG, Ringer M. Evaluation of dressing regimens for prevention of infection with peripheral intravenous catheters: gauze, a transparent polyurethane dressing, and an iodophor-transparent dressing. JAMA 1987;258(17):2396-2403.

    102. Maki DG, Stolz SS, Wheeler S, Mermel LA. A prospective, randomized trial of gauze and two polyurethane dressings for site care of pulmonary artery catheters: implications for catheter management. Crit Care Med 1994;22(11):1729-1737.

    103. Hoffman KK, Weber DJ, Samsa GP, et al. Transparent polyurethane film as an intravenous catheter dressing: a meta-analysis of the infection risks. JAMA 1992;267(15):2072-2076.

    104. McKee R, Dunsmuir R, Whitby M, Garden OJ. Does antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of catheter insertion reduce the incidence of catheter-related sepsis in intravenous nutrition? J Hosp Infect 1985;6(4):419-425.

    105. Ranson MR, Oppenheim BA, Jackson A, et al. Double-blind placebo controlled study of vancomycin prophylaxis for central venous catheter insertion in cancer patients. J Hosp Infect 1990;15(1):95-102.

    106. Ljungman P, Hagglund H, Bjorkstrand B, et al. Perioperative teicoplanin for prevention of Gram-positive infections in neutropenic patients with indwelling central venous catheters: a randomized, controlled study. Support Care Cancer 1997;5(6):485-488.

    107. Van de Wetering MD, van Woensel JBM, Kremer LCM, et al. Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing early Gram-positive central venous catheter infections in oncology patients, a Cochrane systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2005;31:186-196.

    108. Cook D, Randolph A, Kerserman P, et al. Central venous catheter replacement strategies: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 1997;25(8):1417-1424.

    109. Haley RW, Culver DH, White SH, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121(2):182-205.

    110. Nunez S, Moeno A, Green K, Villar J. The stethoscope in the emergency department: a vector of infection? Epidemiol Infect 2000;124(2):233-237.

    111. Bures S, Fishbain JT, Uyehara CF, et al. Computer keyboards and faucet handles as reservoirs of nosocomial pathogens in the intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2000;28(6):465-471.

    112. Larson E. Skin hygiene and infection prevention: more of the same or different approaches? Clin Infect Dis 1999;29(5):1287-1294.

    113. Sanderson PJ, Weissler S. Recovery of coliforms from the hands of nurses and patients: activities lead to contamination. J Hosp Infect 1992;21(2):85-93.

    114. Riggs MM, Sethi AK, Zabarsky TF, et al. Asymptomatic carriers are a potential source for transmission of epidemic and nonepidemic Clostridium difficile strains among long-term care facility residents. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45(8):992-998.

    115. Duckro AN, Blom DW, Lyle EA, et al. Transfer of vancomycin-resistant enterococci via health care worker hands. Arch Intern Med 2005;165(3):302-307.

    116. Pessoa-Silva CL, Dharan S, Hugonnet S, et al. Dynamics of bacterial hand contamination during routine neonatal care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25(3):192-197.

    117. Boyce JM, Potter-Bynoe G, Chenevert C, King T. Environmental contamination due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: possible infection control implications. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18(9):622-627.

    118. Boyce JM, Potter-Bynoe G, Opal SM, et al. A common source outbreak of Staphylococcus epidermidis infections among patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J Infect Dis 1990;161(3):493-499.

    119. Zawacki A, O’Rourke E, Potter-Bynoe G, et al. An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia and bloodstream infection associated with intermittent otitis externa in a healthcare worker. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25(12):1083-1089.

    120. El Shafie SS, Alishaq M, Leni Garcia M. Investigation of an outbreak of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in trauma intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect 2004;56(2):101-105.

    121. World Health Organization. Clean care is safer care: first global patient safety challenge. http://www.who.int/gpsc/en/. Accessed October 17, 2011.

    122. Rotter ML. Handwashing and hand disinfection. In: Marshall CG, ed. HospitalEpidemiology and Infection Control. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999:1339-1355.

    123. Larson El, Morton HE. Alcohols. In: Block SS, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1991:191-203.

    124. Price PB. Ethyl alcohol as a germicide. Arch Surg 1939;38(3):528-542.

    125. Harrington C, Walker H. The germicidal action of alcohol. Bost Med Surg J 1903;148:548-552.

    126. Picheansathian W. A systematic review on effectiveness of alcohol based solutions for hand hygiene. Int J Nurs Pract 2004;10(1):3-9.

    127. Boyce JM, Pittet D. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Association for Professionals in Infection Control/Infectious Diseases Society of America. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51(RR-16):1-45.

    128. Pittet D. Improving adherence to hand hygiene practice: a multidisciplinary approach. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7(2):234-240.

    129. Wright JG, Jung S, Holman RC, et al. Infection control practices and zoonotic risks among veterinarians in the US. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;232(12):1863-1872.

    References »

    NEXT: Applied Dermatology: An Update on the Therapy of Canine Demodicosis

    CETEST This course is approved for 3.0 CE credits

    Start Test


    Did you know... Salmonella and clostridial organisms are human pathogens; therefore, hand washing with antimicrobial soap or the use of an alcohol-based hand sanitizer is required for people handing foals with diarrhea.Read More

    These Care Guides are written to help your clients understand common conditions. They are formatted to print and give to your clients for their information.

    Stay on top of all our latest content — sign up for the Vetlearn newsletters.
    • More