Bacterial Contamination of Stethoscope Chest Pieces and the Effect of Daily Cleaning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stethoscopes are a potential source of nosocomial infection for hospitalized humans, a phenomenon not previously studied in companion animals. OBJECTIVES: To determine if daily cleaning of stethoscope chest pieces reduces bacterial contamination between cleanings. ANIMALS: Client-owned dogs and cats. METHODS: Prospective observational study. In phase 1, bacterial cultures were obtained from the chest pieces of 10 participant stethoscopes once weekly for 3 weeks. In phase 2, stethoscopes were cleaned daily and 2 culture samples were obtained once weekly, immediately before and after cleaning with 70% isopropyl alcohol, for 3 weeks. RESULTS: Daily cleaning eliminated bacteria immediately after each cleaning (P = .004), but did not reduce the rate of positive cultures obtained before cleaning in phase 2. Cultures were positive for 20/30 (67%) samples during phase 1 and 18/30 (60%) obtained before daily cleaning during phase 2. Recovered organisms included normal skin flora, agents of opportunistic infections, and potential pathogens. The only genus that was repeatedly recovered from the same stethoscope for 2 or more consecutive weeks was Bacillus sp. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Daily cleaning was highly effective at removing bacteria, but provided no reduction in precleaning contamination. Cleaning stethoscopes after use on dogs or cats infected with pathogenic bacteria and before use on immunocompromised animals should be considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".