What it means to you: In the Netherlands, a systematic method known as “search and destroy” has been used since 2002 and has cut rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, infection to less than 1 percent. Meanwhile, rates of MRSA infection in the United States are much higher, accounting for as many as 70 percent of S. aureus infections in U.S. hospitals. And those rates are rising. According to a recent survey by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, 46 of every 1,000 patients may be infected or colonized with MRSA on a given day.

The scoop: According to this article, the search and destroy method calls for simple but thorough tactics in high-risk settings such as hospitals. They include:
·    Screening both high- and low-risk patient groups.
·    Isolating patients with MRSA.
·    Treating patients with MRSA.
·    Actively searching for high-risk patients and health-care workers.

Though evidence shows that the Netherlands’ method works, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend it, advocating instead a “multifaceted approach.” There is also some disagreement in the medical community over search and destroy tactics such as universal screening and isolating infected patients. This article in the American College of Physicians’ Hospitalist outlines the debate and some of the practical challenges of adopting the search and destroy method.

Experts in the infection-control field argue that too many lives are lost to MRSA to ignore the benefits of search and destroy, especially considering that a $20 nasal-swab test could end up saving hospitals the $20,000 cost of treating an infected patient. Even consumer media outlets such as Slate.com are sounding off on the issue.

Learn more: Read a scholarly letter on the method from the Journal of Clinical Microbiology. Read a search and destroy PowerPoint presentation for hospital staff. Read a Wall Street Journal health blog that includes consumer responses on search and destroy tactics.