Skip to main content

Table 4 Concordance and discordance between non-microbiologic and microbiologic methods to determine the effectiveness of post-discharge cleaning

From: Effectiveness of visual inspection compared with non-microbiologic methods to determine the thoroughness of post-discharge cleaning

 

Surfaces concordant and discordant with microbiologic sampling (CFU ≤ 5)

 

Concordant, clean

Concordant, dirty

Discordant clean/dirty†

Discordant dirty/clean‡

 

N

N

N (%)

N (%)

Fluorescent marker

107

45

102 (35.2)

36 (12.4)

Visual inspection

126

42

83 (28.6)

39 (13.5)

Adenosine triphosphate

147

36

62 (21.4)

45 (15.5)

  1. Note: A total of 290 surfaces were sampled; 209 (72.1%) were microbiologically clean.
  2. †Discordant clean/dirty indicates the microbiologic method characterized the surface as clean, and the non-microbiologic method characterized the surface as dirty.
  3. ‡Discordant dirty/clean indicates the microbiologic method characterized the surface as dirty, and the non-microbiologic method characterized the surface as clean. CFU, colony-forming units.