Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria in Health Care Facilities: Exploring Links With Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene in Gaza, Palestine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing global phenomenon; however, its link to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) remains underexplored, particularly in health care facilities where humanitarian crises prevail. Objective This study aimed to identify AMR bacteria in samples collected from WASH services in 2 hospitals in Gaza and to investigate the presence of AMR genes. Methods A hospital-based cross-sectional study to detect and identify antimicrobial resistance bacteria was conducted. Random samples from water, wastewater, soap, and surface swabs (n=345) were collected from Al-Shifa and European Gaza hospitals and screened for the presence of Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, and Staphylococcusaureus. Antimicrobial susceptibility, extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production, carbapenem resistance, and AMR genes were investigated. Results High levels of bacterial contamination were detected in water and surface swab samples with an overall percentage of 34.1%. Moreover, 22% of the identified Enterobacteriaceae was positive for ESBL, and 14% was positive for modified Hodge test. Over 2/3 of isolated Enterobacteriaceae in water and wastewater samples was found to be resistant to amikacin, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, and imipenem. All Enterobacteriaceae isolates from swab samples were found to be resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam, amikacin, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone; 13.8% of S. aureus in water samples was methicillin resistant. The prevalence of ESBL genes among Enterobacteriaceae isolates was 25% OXA, 19.4% SHV, 2.8% KPC, 66.7% TEM, 41.7% blaCTXM, and 5.6% blaCTXM-3. For carbapenem-resistant gene (MDM), the prevalence among Enterobacteriaceae was 11.1%, and among Pseudomonas was 12.5%. The antibiotic susceptibility profile was also presented for Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, and S. aureus. Conclusions The results underline the level of contamination with AMR bacteria in WASH samples and highlight the need to consider the safety of WASH service at health care facilities as an essential aspect in the fight against the spread of AMR and to interrupt nosocomial transmission.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".