Suprapubic catheter insertion is an outpatient procedure: cost savings resultant on closing an audit loop.

OBJECTIVE

To explore, by an audit, the regional practice of inserting a suprapubic catheter (SPC), and to prospectively determine the proportion of patients that can be successfully managed on an outpatient basis in one department.

METHODS

Both local and regional practice were determined by a retrospective analysis of the hospital database for all cases of SPC insertion between April 2005 and March 2006. In addition, a questionnaire was e-mailed to each of 11 urology departments. Locally, from August 2006 onwards, all patients scheduled for SPC insertion were referred to a new clinic, where the SPC was inserted using a new SPC kit and the Seldinger technique.

RESULTS

Locally, 66 patients (mean age 70 years, range 26-93) had a SPC inserted between April 2005 and March 2006; 49 had an elective procedure while 17 were emergency admissions. The median (range) hospital stay was 3.5 (1-85) days. Within the region, 480 SPCs were inserted in theatre during the same period, of which 52% (249) were inserted as elective inpatients, 11% (52) were inserted as a day case, and 37% (179) had SPCs as emergency admissions. A nurse-led outpatient service was available in two hospitals, where 89% of patients seen in the clinic had successful insertion under local anaesthesia, and only 11% were referred for insertion under general anasthesia. Between August 2006 and July 2007, 50 of 54 patients had a SPC inserted successfully in the new SPC clinic. There were no major complications. The cost benefits of adopting an outpatient management strategy were significant, at approximately GB 100,000 pounds/year in our hospital, 790,000 pounds/year in the region and 9,500,000 pounds/year for the UK.

CONCLUSION

An outpatient procedure for a SPC is safe and feasible in most patients, and its widespread use would produce considerable cost savings.