Delaying Intraoral Radiographs during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Conundrum

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has made dentists very assiduous about cross-infection during dental treatment, thereby delaying dental radiographs for treatment. However, patients needing dental emergency treatment in the ongoing pandemic require relevant intra/extraoral dental radiography for adequate diagnosis and treatment planning. Methods. This article is aimed at adding to the hot debate: Is delay for intraoral radiographs justified or a possible proxy? As a narrative review, it provides an insight into the reasons for delaying intra-oral dental radiographs during in the pandemic and options of the nontraditional radiographic techniques available until the pandemic subsides. Discussion and Conclusion. Cross-contamination concerns through respiratory droplets grow while using intraoral film holders that stimulate gag reflex, coughing, saliva secretion, and if proper disinfection protocols are not applied. Since the patients’ acquiring emergency dental treatment cannot be neglected, the return-to-work guidelines by the health regulatory bodies urge to prioritize extraoral radiographic imaging techniques to curb the infection, offering the best diagnostic efficacy. The dental professionals can consider cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and sectional dental panoramic radiographs (SDPRs), followed by a risk assessment for COVID-19, a safer modality in reducing cross-contamination and assuring an innocuous environment for both patient and coworkers.

Standard Food Safety Practices From Receiving to Cleaning in the Restaurant

Transmission of hazardous materials could be aggravated by inappropriate handling and storage practices. This results in cross-contamination to foodstuff or cooking utensils. The introduced hazards in the food supply chain might lead to client and reputation loss. The implementation of food safety is necessary to secure safety concerns. All employees should take initiative to be aware and have good attitudes regarding proper hygiene and sanitary practices to assure their product integrity and safety for human consumption. Therefore, this chapter delivered the appropriate and standard food safety protocols to all individuals involved in food storage, preparation, and serving. The scope was structured into (1) identification of hazardous ingredients, (2) purchasing and receiving raw materials, (3) transporting and storage, (4) cooking and reheating, (5) food serving and displaying, (6) leftover storage, and (7) cleaning and sanitation.

Antimicrobial Resistance and PFGE Molecular Typing of Salmonella enterica Serovar Gallinarum Isolates from Chickens in South Korea from 2013 to 2018

Antimicrobial resistance and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) genotypes of collected S. enterica ser. Gallinarum isolates were investigated to examine the epidemiological relationship between field outbreak isolates of S. enterica ser. Gallinarum. Thirty S. enterica ser. Gallinarum isolates collected from poultry farms with FT outbreaks from 2013 to 2018 in South Korea were analyzed. All isolates were resistant to at least 3 of the 18 antimicrobials tested and exhibited an MDR phenotype. All isolates showed resistance to streptomycin, sulfisoxazole, and colistin. One isolate was resistant to 9 antimicrobials. The antimicrobial resistance profile, streptomycin-sulfisoxazole-colistin-nalidixic acid-ciprofloxacin-gentamicin (18/30, 60.0%), was the most prevalent. PFGE types were classified into 10 groups with a 100% correlation cutoff in dendrograms for 30 field isolates. The dominant PFGE types were 1 (8/30, 26.7%), 4 (7/30, 23.3%), and 9 (5/30, 16.7%). Interestingly some isolates collected from the same and different companies had the same PFGE type. We reported a high MDR rate in S. enterica ser. Gallinarum isolates. The present study highlights the occurrence of horizontal spread and cyclic contamination of MDR S. enterica ser. Gallinarum within the same company. Furthermore, we showed cross-contamination between different companies. The characterization of these isolates would be helpful in the development of prevention and control strategies for MDR S. enterica ser. Gallinarum infection in South Korea.

Consumers Awareness of the Message Not to Wash Raw Poultry, Current Practices, and Barriers to Following that Message

There are an estimated 47.8 million cases of foodborne illness in the U.S. each year. Raw poultry is the most common single commodity food associated with foodborne illness. The practice of washing raw poultry is highly prevalent among consumers despite the significant cross contamination risk. Previous educational campaigns have attempted to reduce the prevalence of washing raw poultry; however, there is limited information on how successful they have been in changing consumer behavior. In the research presented here, an online survey was administered to 1,822 consumers in the United States via SurveyMonkey. The survey sought to determine whether consumers washed raw poultry and if they were aware of the correct behavior to not wash raw poultry. Consumers who indicated that they were not aware of the correct behavior were presented with the USDA's educational message online and then asked how confident they were that they could stop washing raw poultry. The survey also included questions to identify barriers that prevented consumers who were aware of the correct behavior from not washing raw poultry. Results indicate that 73.5% (n = 1340) of consumers reported washing raw poultry. Of those consumers, 68.1% (n = 913) indicated that they were not aware that the practice is incorrect. When these consumers were presented the educational message, 81.9% (n =748) indicated that they were somewhat to very confident that they could stop washing raw poultry. Of the consumers who were aware of the correct behavior but continued to wash raw poultry, 58.4% (n = 244) reported that they continued to do so because they thought they cleaned surfaces well afterward. That is, consumers did not believe that their washing raw poultry was a risk for cross contamination. Data indicate that a large percentage of consumers are still not aware of the correct behavior to not wash raw poultry and a large subset of that group may easily adopt the practice if made aware of the correct behavior.

Microscopy and the COVID-19 Pandemic, What We Need to Know?-The Hygiene Protocols and Digitalization

The COVID-19 pandemic has reemphasized the significance of personal protection at all the levels, from public places to hospitals, to working spaces to residence and at individual levels. It is inevitable for personnel in a common working space to share items multiple times one after the other frequently. Laboratory is one such arena and is also of great concern as it is associated with handling pathogenic specimens, investigating and diagnosing pathologies. By nature, it can be of great concern due to the possibility of higher chances of cross contamination. This fact is made even more precarious by the current COVID 19 pandemic. Hence there is a great need for a set of guidelines, appropriate protocols, best hygiene practices and digitalization in reporting and teaching learning, to be followed in the laboratory to prevent cross contamination. Microscopy work area is part of laboratory where microscopes are placed and used by the professionals for pathological diagnosis or research. Though there are set guidelines to be followed for most aspects of the laboratory, the cleanliness and personal protective guidelines for microscopes are sparse. Use of a disposable or reusable plastic film for covering microscopes, selection of suitable disinfectant, use of proper cleaning and protective tools and safeguarding the sensitive parts of microscope are highly recommended.

Revision and annotation of DNA barcode records for marine invertebrates: report of the 8th iBOL conference hackathon

The accuracy of specimen identification through DNA barcoding and metabarcoding relies on reference libraries containing records with reliable taxonomy and sequence quality. The considerable growth in barcode data requires stringent data curation, especially in taxonomically difficult groups such as marine invertebrates. A major effort in curating marine barcode data in the Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) was undertaken during the 8th International Barcode of Life Conference (Trondheim, Norway, 2019). Major taxonomic groups (crustaceans, echinoderms, molluscs, and polychaetes) were reviewed to identify those which had disagreement between Linnaean names and Barcode Index Numbers (BINs). The records with disagreement were annotated with four tags: a) MIS-ID (misidentified, mislabeled, or contaminated records), b) AMBIG (ambiguous records unresolved with the existing data), c) COMPLEX (species names occurring in multiple BINs), and d) SHARE (barcodes shared between species). A total of 83,712 specimen records corresponding to 7,576 species were reviewed and 39% of the species were tagged (7% MIS-ID, 17% AMBIG, 14% COMPLEX, and 1% SHARE). High percentages (>50%) of AMBIG tags were recorded in gastropods, whereas COMPLEX tags dominated in crustaceans and polychaetes. The high proportion of tagged species reflects either flaws in the barcoding workflow (e.g., misidentification, cross-contamination) or taxonomic difficulties (e.g., synonyms, undescribed species). Although data curation is essential for barcode applications, such manual attempts to examine large datasets are unsustainable and automated solutions are extremely desirable.

Understanding barriers to consumers to stop washing raw poultry through in-depth interviews

PurposeFoodborne illness from poultry may be associated with improper handling that results in cross contamination. Washing of raw poultry is one practice that can lead to cross contamination. Some consumers continue to wash raw poultry after learning that not washing raw poultry is the safe behavior. There is a need to better understand why some consumers continue this practice and identify barriers to them adopting the correct behavior.Design/methodology/approachThis research utilized qualitative, in-depth interviews to understand some consumer's barriers to adopting the behavior of not washing raw poultry. The interview questioning route was iteratively developed and designed to allow both structure and flexibility. Questions were anchored in the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change. Interviews (N = 23) were conducted over Zoom. Thematic analysis identified themes around consumers' resistance to adopting the correct behavior for handling raw poultry.FindingsResults from the thematic analysis indicate that chicken preparation methods were primarily influenced by family. A desire to control the process of preparing food, lack of trust in chicken processing, and the habitual nature of the behavior all contributed to the continuation of washing raw poultry. Over half of the participants (61%) expressed interest in changing behaviors in the future. Needing supporting scientific evidence, and an alternative behavior to replace washing were two key factors to support the development of future public health messaging.Originality/valueThis study investigates the barriers to safe raw poultry handling utilizing in-depth interviews and contributes to the development of more effective public health messaging.

Use of Sysmex UF-5000 flow cytometry in rapid diagnosis of urinary tract infection and the importance of validating carryover rates against bacterial count cut-off

Introduction. Urinary tract infections are common bacterial infections worldwide. Urine culture is the gold standard method to identify and quantify the presence or absence of bacteria in urine. Flow cytometry, which can differentiate and quantify multiple particles (including bacteria) in the urine, presents an alternative method for rapid screening to rule out bacteriuria. Hypothesis. Adding flow cytometry to identify urine samples without bacteriuria could substantially reduce the number of urine samples that need to be cultured as well as the response time for negative results. However, the level of instrument rinsing between samples could affect sample-to-sample carryover rate, a concept given little attention in previous studies. Aim. We aimed to evaluate urine flow cytometry as a rapid screening method to identify urine samples without significant bacterial growth, including analyses of cross-contamination and sample-to-sample carryover rate. Methodology. We analysed 3919 urine samples by quantitative urine culture and flow cytometry screening (Sysmex UF-5000). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were used to test method agreement to identify: (a) positive vs. negative culture and (b) mixed vs. pure culture. In addition, we performed carryover and cross-contamination studies. Results. ROC curve analyses identified bacterial count (BACT ml−1) and leucocyte count (WBC µl−1) as possible predictors of bacterial growth in the total material and subpopulations, except pregnant women (n=451). This subgroup was excluded from further analyses, leaving a final 3468 urine samples. Area under the ROC curve was 0.94 (95 % CI 0.93–0.95) and 0.81 (95 % CI 0.79–0.82) for bacterial and leucocyte count, respectively. A bacterial count cut-off of 30 BACT ml−1 resulted in 95.2 % sensitivity and 91.2 % negative predictive value, resulting in approximately 30 % of urine samples that could be reported as negative without culture. Use of high-level rinse modes was necessary to ensure carryover rates <0.05 %. Conclusion. Flow cytometry is a suitable and rapid method to rule out urine samples without significant bacterial growth. Rinses between samples should be adjusted, depending on the cut-off used, to prevent sample-to-sample carryover, whereas cross-contamination can be eliminated by the use of separate urine aliquots for flow cytometry analysis and urine culturing respectively.