In order to identify an index patient, it would be helpful if risk patients were routinely swabbed upon admission. As the efficacy and cost-effectiveness

of patient screening are unproven and the quality of the evidence is poor (McGinigle et al. 2008), other deciding criteria should be established for the appraisal of MRSA infection as an selleck compound OD in HCWs. The practice under German law is to apply the presumed causality clause in order to facilitate the recognition of OD claims in those cases where no index patient has been identified, but the infection appears to be evidently occupationally related (SGB VII, Art. 9, Para. 3). In all 17 recognized cases, it was assumed that the infected HCW had been in direct contact with GSK126 order patients likely to have proven MRSA-positive, although this could be verified in only

53% of these cases. It is apparent that the quality of evidence substantiating workplace-related infection varies. These figures show that conclusive evidence of a causal link between MRSA infection and the workplace, i.e. recorded exposure to MRSA-positive patients, was determined only in every second HCW. The procedure to adjudicate claims for recognition of MRSA infection as an OD involved both hard facts and less conclusive evidence. The strongest argument for a causal relationship was a similar genetic profile of the index patient and the HCW. The least conclusive argument was the presumption that the workplace was a healthcare setting in which MRSA was endemic. In 18% of the recognized cases, no expert appraisal was performed. This may be because many MRSA cases recovered without complications and incurred low medical costs so that an expert appraisal was deemed unwarranted. The reasons for rejecting claims for the recognition of MRSA as an OD were not analyzed in this paper. The data in the standard documentation of rejected cases are not detailed enough to allow reliable

assessment, with regard to exposure and symptoms. Furthermore, the data do not distinguish between colonization and infection. The data suggest that a large proportion of the MRSA claims were rejected by the BGW because MRSA colonization is not considered legitimate confirmation of OD. A large proportion of the rejected claims for which no specific workplace exposure MTMR9 was established were probably reported for prophylactic reasons to allow for the possibility that it should prove necessary to make an insurance claim. The German Code of Social Law (SGB VII, Art. 9, Para. 3) stipulates that sufficient probability of a workplace-related cause of disease should be established. Additional, this website non-occupational risks of infection were found in five cases. However, the assessors did not address risks outside the HCW’s job in their appraisal of these cases. Presumably, the assessors considered the risk of infection among HCWs to be higher than the endemic risk in the population at large.