Carter Eileen J, Pallin Daniel J, Mandel Leslie, Sinnette Corine, Schuur Jeremiah D
1Columbia University School of Nursing,NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital,New York,New York.
2Brigham and Women's Hospital,Department of Emergency Medicine,Boston,Massachusetts.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;37(2):156-62. doi: 10.1017/ice.2015.267. Epub 2015 Nov 3.
Existing knowledge of emergency department (ED) catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention is limited. We aimed to describe the motivations, perceived risks for CAUTI acquisition, and strategies used to address CAUTI risk among EDs that had existing CAUTI prevention programs.
In this qualitative comparative case study, we enrolled early-adopting EDs, that is, those using criteria for urinary catheter placement and tracking the frequency of catheters placed in the ED. At 6 diverse facilities, we conducted 52 semistructured interviews and 9 focus groups with hospital and ED participants.
All ED CAUTI programs originated from a hospitalwide focus on CAUTI prevention. Staff were motivated to address CAUTI because they believed program compliance improved patient care. ED CAUTI prevention was perceived to differ from CAUTI prevention in the inpatient setting. To identify areas of ED CAUTI prevention focus, programs examined ED workflow and identified 4 CAUTI risks: (1) inappropriate reasons for urinary catheter placement; (2) physicians' limited involvement in placement decisions; (3) patterns of urinary catheter overuse; and (4) poor insertion technique. Programs redesigned workflow to address risks by (1) requiring staff to specify the medical reason for catheter at the point of order entry and placement; (2) making physicians responsible for determining catheter use; (3) using catheter alternatives to address patterns of overuse; and (4) modifying urinary catheter insertion practices to ensure proper placement.
Early-adopting EDs redesigned workflow to minimize catheter use and ensure proper insertion technique. Assessment of ED workflow is necessary to identify and modify local practices that may increase CAUTI risk.
急诊科(ED)预防导尿管相关尿路感染(CAUTI)的现有知识有限。我们旨在描述具有现有CAUTI预防计划的急诊科预防CAUTI的动机、获取CAUTI的感知风险以及用于应对CAUTI风险的策略。
在这项定性比较案例研究中,我们纳入了早期采用的急诊科,即那些使用导尿管放置标准并跟踪急诊科导尿管放置频率的科室。在6个不同的机构中,我们对医院和急诊科参与者进行了52次半结构化访谈和9次焦点小组讨论。
所有急诊科CAUTI计划都源于全院对CAUTI预防的关注。工作人员有动力应对CAUTI,因为他们认为遵守计划能改善患者护理。急诊科CAUTI预防被认为与住院环境中的CAUTI预防不同。为了确定急诊科CAUTI预防的重点领域,各计划检查了急诊科工作流程并确定了4种CAUTI风险:(1)导尿管放置的不适当原因;(2)医生在放置决策中的参与有限;(3)导尿管过度使用模式;(4)插入技术不佳。各计划重新设计了工作流程以应对风险,方法包括:(1)要求工作人员在医嘱录入和放置时指定导尿管的医学原因;(2)让医生负责确定导尿管的使用;(3)使用导尿管替代品来解决过度使用模式;(4)修改导尿管插入操作以确保正确放置。
早期采用的急诊科重新设计了工作流程,以尽量减少导尿管的使用并确保正确的插入技术。评估急诊科工作流程对于识别和修改可能增加CAUTI风险的当地做法是必要的。