Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T05:31:30.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Annual Tuberculin Skin Testing of Employees at a University Hospital: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Issam Raad ,
Janet Cusick ,
Robert J. Sherertz ,
Mouin Sabbagh  and
Nora Howell
Issam Raad*
Affiliation:
University of Florida Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Gainesville, Florida
Janet Cusick
Affiliation:
University of Florida Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Gainesville, Florida
Robert J. Sherertz
Affiliation:
University of Florida Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Gainesville, Florida
Mouin Sabbagh
Affiliation:
University of Florida Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Gainesville, Florida
Nora Howell
Affiliation:
University of Florida Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Gainesville, Florida
*
Infectious Diseases, M.D. Anderson Hospital, University of Texas-Box 47, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The usefulness of routine annual tuberculin skin testing (purified protein derivative [PPD]) of hospital employees has been questioned. Between 1984 and the end of 1987 the PPD conversion rates of hospital employees at a university and psychiatric hospital in North Florida were compared. The number of employees in both hospitals were almost equal and compliance with the annual testing was more than 95%. In the psychiatric hospital tuberculosis screening of patients was practiced on admission and annually thereafter. Although no unsuspected smear-positive tuberculosis patients were diagnosed in the psychiatric hospital as compared to four in the university hospital, the annual conversion rates of employees were 0.42% and 0.13%, respectively (p>0.001). However, the ratios of these conversion rates to the incidence of tuberculosis in the counties where these hospitals are located respectively were similar (20.0 vs 24.3, p=0.7). The community seems be the major source of the PPD conversion. At the university hospital more than $70,000 was spent on the annual PPD testing to discover 15 converters; nine had no or minimal contact with patients and only two complied with isoniazid (INH) prophylaxis. Annual PPD testing is not cost effective in hospitals with a low annual conversion rate among its employees and with low tuberculosis case rates in the hospital and the surrounding community.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 10 , Issue 10 , October 1989 , pp. 465 - 469
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. American Thoracic Society: Statement: Control of tuberculosis. Am Rev Respir Dis 128:336–342.Google Scholar
2. Williams, WW: CDC guidelines of infection control in hospital personnel. Infect Control 1983;4:336–337.Google Scholar
3. Aitken, ML, Anderson, KM, Albert, RK: The tuberculosis screening program of hospital employees still required. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987;136:805–807.10.1164/ajrccm/136.4.805Google Scholar
4. Price, LE, Rutala, WA, Samsa, GP: Tuberculosis in hospital personnel. Infect Control 1987;8:97–101.10.1017/S0195941700067254Google Scholar
5. Lowenthal, G, Keys, T: Tuberculosis surveillance in hospital employers: Are we doing too much? Infect Control 1986;7:209–211.Google Scholar
6. Stead, WW: Annual tuberculosis screening of hospital employees: An idea whose time has not passed. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987;136:803–804.10.1164/ajrccm/136.4.803Google Scholar
7. Berman, J, Levin, ML, Tangerose, OS, et al: Tuberculosis risk for hospital employees: Analysis of a five-year tuberculin skin testing program. Am J Public Health 1981;71:1217–1222.10.2105/AJPH.71.11.1217Google Scholar
8. Riley, RA; The hazard is relative. Am Rev Resp Dis 1967;96:623–625.Google Scholar
9. Faden, HS, Lee, J, Ogra, PL: Employee health screening: In pediatric hospital. NY State J Med 1979;1708–1711.Google Scholar
10. Atuk, NO, Hunt, EH: Serial tuberculin testing and isoniazid therapy in general hospital employees. JAMA 1971;218:1795–1798.10.1001/jama.1971.03190250021005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Tsevat, J, ‘Taylor, WC, Wong, JB, et al: Isoniazid for the tuberculin reactor: Take it or leave it. Am Rev Resp Dis 1988;137:215–220.10.1164/ajrccm/137.1.215Google Scholar
12. Taylor, WC, Aronson, MD, Delbanco, TL: Should young adults with a positive tuberculin test take isoniazid? Ann Intern Med 1981:94:808–813.10.7326/0003-4819-94-6-808Google Scholar
13. Comstock, GW: Evaluating isoniazid preventive therapy? The need for more data. Ann Intern Med 1981;94:817–819.10.7326/0003-4819-94-6-817Google Scholar
14. Rose, DN. Schechter, CB, Silver, AL: The age threshold for isoniazid chemoprophylaxis. JAMA 1986;256:2709–2713.10.1001/jama.1986.03380190079029Google Scholar
15. Farer, LS; Chemoprophylaxis. Am Rev Respir Dis 1982;125(suppl):102–107.Google Scholar
16. Stead, WW. To, T, Harrison, RW, et al: Benefit-risk considerations in preventive treatment for tuberculosis in elderly persons. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:843–845.10.7326/0003-4819-107-6-843Google Scholar
17. Geiseler, PJ. Nelson, KE. Crispen, GH: Tuberculosis in physicians. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987:135:3–9.Google Scholar
18. Barrett-Connor, E: The epidemiology of tuberculosis in physicians. JAMA 1979;241:33–38.10.1001/jama.1979.03290270023014Google Scholar
19. Ruben, FL, Norden, CW. Schuster, N: Analysis of a community hospital employee tuberculosis screening program 31 months after its inception. Am Rev Respir Dis 1977;155:23–28.Google Scholar
20. Vogeler, DM, Burker, JP: Tuberculosis screening for hospital employees: A five year experience in a large community hospital. Am Rev Respir Dis 1978;117:227–232.Google Scholar
21. Comstock, GW: Frost revisited: The modern epidemiology of tuberculosis. Am J Epidemiol 1975;101:363–382.10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112105Google Scholar
22. Comstock, GW, Livesay, VT, Woolpert, SF: The prognosis of a positive tuberculin reaction in childhood and adolescence. Am J Epidemiol 1974;99:131–138.10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a121593CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Ferebee, SH, Mount, FW: ‘Tuberculosis morbidity in a controlled trial of the prophylactic use of isoniazid among household contacts. Am Rev Respir Dis 1962;85:490–421.Google Scholar
24. Barrett-Connor, E: The periodic chest roentgenogram for the control of tuberculosis in health care personnel. Am Rey Respir Dis 1980;122:153–155.Google Scholar
25. Reeves, SA. Noble, RC: Ineffectiveness of annual chest roentgenograms in tuberculin skin test-positive hospital employees. Am Infect Control 1983;11:212–216.10.1016/0196-6553(83)90002-0Google Scholar
26. Cope, R, Hartstein, AI: The annual chest roentgenogram for the control of tuberculosis in hospital employees: Recent changes and their implications. Am Rev Respir Dis 1982;125:106–107.Google Scholar
27. Centers for Disease Control: Tuberculosis and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-Florida. MMWR 1986;35:587–590.Google Scholar
28. Centers for Disease Control: Tuberculosis and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-New York City. MMWR 1987;36:785–795.Google Scholar
29. Centers for Disease Control: Tuberculosis-United States, 1985. MMWR 1986;35:699–703.Google Scholar
30. Centers for Disease Control: Tuberculosis, final data-United States, 1986. MMWR 1988;36:817–826.Google Scholar