Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T09:41:25.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing clinically relevant endemic environmental bacterial and viral contamination in neonatal intensive care areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2026

Bobby G. WarrenOpen the ORCID record for Bobby G. Warren[Opens in a new window],
Amanda M. GravesOpen the ORCID record for Amanda M. Graves[Opens in a new window],
Aaron Barrett,
Guerbine Fils-Aime,
Isadora MamikunianOpen the ORCID record for Isadora Mamikunian[Opens in a new window],
Melissa CampbellOpen the ORCID record for Melissa Campbell[Opens in a new window],
Lakshmi Katakam,
Deverick J. AndersonOpen the ORCID record for Deverick J. Anderson[Opens in a new window] and
Ibukunoluwa C. Kalu
Bobby G. Warren*
Affiliation:
Disinfection, Resistance, and Transmission Epidemiology (DiRTE Lab), Durham, NC, USADuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Durham, NC, USA
Amanda M. Graves
Affiliation:
Disinfection, Resistance, and Transmission Epidemiology (DiRTE Lab), Durham, NC, USADuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Durham, NC, USA
Aaron Barrett
Affiliation:
Disinfection, Resistance, and Transmission Epidemiology (DiRTE Lab), Durham, NC, USADuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Durham, NC, USA
Guerbine Fils-Aime
Affiliation:
Disinfection, Resistance, and Transmission Epidemiology (DiRTE Lab), Durham, NC, USADuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Durham, NC, USA
Isadora Mamikunian
Affiliation:
Disinfection, Resistance, and Transmission Epidemiology (DiRTE Lab), Durham, NC, USADuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Durham, NC, USA
Melissa Campbell
Affiliation:
Duke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Durham, NC, USADivision of Pediatrics Infectious Diseases, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
Lakshmi Katakam
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatrics Infectious Diseases, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
Deverick J. Anderson
Affiliation:
Disinfection, Resistance, and Transmission Epidemiology (DiRTE Lab), Durham, NC, USADuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Durham, NC, USA
Ibukunoluwa C. Kalu
Affiliation:
Disinfection, Resistance, and Transmission Epidemiology (DiRTE Lab), Durham, NC, USADuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Durham, NC, USADivision of Pediatrics Infectious Diseases, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
*
Corresponding author: Bobby G. Warren; Email: bobby.warren@duke.edu

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Research Brief
Information
Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , 2026, e129
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Introduction

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are among the most serious threats to infant survival. NICU patients are highly susceptible to HAIs due to immature immunity, invasive procedures, and prolonged hospitalizations. 1 Reported NICU HAI rates range from 8% to 15%, markedly higher than the ∼3% prevalence among adult hospital admissions, and up to 40% among extremely low birthweight infants, corresponding to an estimated 28,000–52,500 NICU-associated infections annually in the United States. 2–Reference Marty, Sorum, Smith, Nicoski, Sayyed and Amin5

Despite this burden, few studies have prospectively evaluated environmental contamination in NICUs. Most existing data are from outbreak settings, leaving fundamental gaps in knowledge. No prior work has examined how pod size and layout, as well as shared and patient-dedicated surfaces, influence contamination risk. As a result, infection prevention practices are largely adapted from adult care models. We conducted a pilot study to characterize bacterial and viral contamination of high-touch surfaces in NICU environments by surface type and pod size.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, pilot study in a 74-bed, level 4 NICU at a tertiary academic medical center. During a two-week period in April 2025, high-touch surfaces were sampled from multiple pods in the NICU representing both shared and patient-dedicated spaces. Enrolled pods housed 2, 4, 8, or 15 patient beds. Pods and surfaces received routine cleaning per unit policy.

Surfaces were grouped into three categories: patient-specific surfaces (PSSs), shared patient surfaces (SPSs), and unit-wide surfaces (UWSs). PSSs included isolette doors and handles, isolette drawer handles, isolette rails, bottle warmers, IV poles, temperature probes, keyboards, and family chairs. SPSs included breast pumps, clinician phones, diaper scales, glucometers, room tables, and handwashing sinks. UWSs included blanket warmers and breastmilk refrigerator handles.

Surfaces were sampled with flocked swabs premoistened in neutralizing buffer. Samples were analyzed for total bacterial bioburden and clinically important pathogens (CIPs), with bacterial identification by culture on selective media and viral detection by qPCR. Reference Fry, Chittaganpitch and Baggett6,Reference Heim, Ebnet, Harste and Pring-Akerblom7 Bacterial CIP included Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus spp., gram-negative rods, and Clostridioides difficile. Viral CIP targets included adenovirus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Descriptive statistics summarized bioburden and detection frequency by organism, surface, and pod.

Results

Ninety-nine surface samples were collected during the study. Of these, 74 (75%) were from PSSs, 19 (19%) SPSs, and 6 (6%) UWSs. Samples represented pods of varying sizes: 11 (11%) from two-bed pods, 15 (15%) from four-bed pods, 30 (30%) from eight-bed pods, and 37 (38%) from fifteen-bed pods.

The median bioburden across all surfaces was 130 CFU (IQR, 30–660), with no significant differences between pod sizes or surface categories (data not shown). Overall, 56 (57%) samples were positive for at least one CIP. Several surfaces were contaminated in all sampled instances with at least one CIP including isolette rails, family chairs, isolette drawer handles, handwashing sinks, diaper scales, room tables, breast pumps, and breastmilk refrigerator handles. By surface category, 41 (55%) of PSS, 10 (53%) of SPS, and 5 (83%) of UWS samples were positive for any study pathogen and 20 (27%) of PSS, 6 (33%) of SPS, and 5 (83%) of UWS samples for bacterial contamination (Figure 1). Viral contamination was uncommon and largely confined to PSSs, which accounted for 15 of 16 (94%) total viral detections.

Figure 1.

Proportion of sampled surfaces positive for ≥1 study pathogen, stratified by pod size and surface category. PSS, patient-specific surface; SPS, shared patient surface; UWS, unit-wide surface.

When stratified by pod size, contamination was identified in 4 (36%) samples from two-bed pods, 9 (60%) from four-bed pods, 15 (50%) from eight-bed pods, and 21 (55%) from fifteen-bed pods, with no statistically significant differences (Figure 1). Overall, S. aureus (31%) and Enterococcus spp. (22%) were the most frequently recovered bacteria, followed by gram-negative rods (9%) and Clostridioides difficile (2%). None of the 34 infants receiving routine care in sampled rooms had documented infections or positive clinical cultures in the preceding 30 days.

Discussion

Despite low overall bioburden and no documented patient infections, more than half of sampled NICU surfaces harbored at least one CIP. S. aureus and Enterococcus spp. predominated, consistent with their persistence in healthcare environments. Reference Warren, Barrett, Graves, King, Turner and Anderson8,Reference Weber, Anderson and Rutala9 High-touch items such as isolette components, sinks, and shared clinical equipment were contaminated in all sampled instances, highlighting potential persistent reservoirs for pathogen transmission in neonatal settings. Viral detections were almost exclusively limited to PSSs, suggesting localized contamination associated with direct caregiving activities, which aligns with the shorter environmental persistence of most respiratory and enteric viruses relative to bacteria and the possibility of prolonged or asymptomatic viral shedding in hospitalized infants. These findings underscore the role of spatial layout and pod configuration in contamination patterns seen in NICUs. However, given the small scale of this pilot study, differences by pod size or surface type may not have been fully captured. This study provides an early framework for linking unit design with infection risk, an area not previously explored in neonatal infection prevention research.

Limitations include the single-center design, limited sampling, and potential under- or overestimation of contamination due to culture-based and qPCR methods. Reference Warren, Barrett, Fils-Aime, Graves and Anderson10 Despite these limitations, the study demonstrates the feasibility of systematic environmental surveillance in neonatal settings.

These findings highlight that environmental contamination with CIPs is common in NICUs, even in the absence of known patient infections. This pilot represents an initial step toward understanding contamination dynamics unique to neonatal care. Larger, multicenter studies are needed to identify drivers of contamination across NICU layouts and workflows. Current infection-prevention protocols, largely adapted from adult settings, may not fully address neonatal care environments. Future work should focus on developing neonatal-specific prevention strategies and cleaning practices that reflect the realities of modern NICU care.

Financial support

This study was funded in kind.

Competing interests

No authors report conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

PREVIOUS PRESENTATION: Poster at IDWeek 2025.

References

GBD 2019 Under-5 Mortality Collaborators. Global, regional, and national progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 for neonatal and child health: all-cause and cause-specific mortality findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Lond Engl 2021;398:870–905. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01207-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CDC. HAIs: reports and data. Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). November 25, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/php/data/index.html. Accessed August 4, 2025.Google Scholar
Brady, MT. Health care–associated infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2005;33:268–275. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2004.11.006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghesi, A, Stronati, M. Strategies for the prevention of hospital-acquired infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect 2008;68:293–300. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2008.01.011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marty, D, Sorum, K, Smith, K, Nicoski, P, Sayyed, BA, Amin, S. Nosocomial infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. NeoReviews 2024;25:e254–e264. doi:10.1542/neo.25-5-e254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fry, AM, Chittaganpitch, M, Baggett, HC, et al. The burden of hospitalized lower respiratory tract infection due to respiratory syncytial virus in rural Thailand. PLoS One 2010;5: e15098. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heim, A, Ebnet, C, Harste, G, Pring-Akerblom, P. Rapid and quantitative detection of human adenovirus DNA by real-time PCR. J Med Virol 2003;70:228–239. doi:10.1002/jmv.10382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, BG, Barrett, A, Graves, A, King, C, Turner, NA, Anderson, DJ. An enhanced strategy for daily disinfection in acute care hospital rooms: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e2242131. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, DJ, Anderson, D, Rutala, WA. The role of the surface environment in healthcare-associated infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2013;26:338–344. doi:10.1097/QCO.0b013e3283630f04.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, BG, Barrett, A, Fils-Aime, G, Graves, AM, Anderson, DJ. Culture-based viability PCR: strategies to harness sensitivity and minimize false positives. Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol. 2025;5:e158.10.1017/ash.2025.10071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1.Proportion of sampled surfaces positive for ≥1 study pathogen, stratified by pod size and surface category. PSS, patient-specific surface; SPS, shared patient surface; UWS, unit-wide surface.