Gurwitz Jerry H, DuBeau Catherine, Mazor Kathleen, Sreedhara Meera, Lemay Celeste, Spenard Ann, Pandolfi Michelle, Johnson Florence, Field Terry
Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Nov;64(11):2204-2209. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14464. Epub 2016 Sep 19.
To describe the epidemiology of indwelling urinary catheter use in nursing homes (NHs).
Observational cohort study.
A purposeful sampling strategy was used to identify a diverse sample of 28 Connecticut NHs, defined in terms of ownership, quality ratings, and bed size.
Long-stay (>100 days) residents of study NHs with an indwelling urinary catheter present at any time over a 1-year period.
Duration of catheter use was determined, and indications for catheter placement were documented. Indications considered appropriate included urinary retention or outlet obstruction, pressure ulcer (Stage 3 or 4 with risk of contamination by urine), hospice care, and need for accurate measurement of input and output. During quarterly follow-up assessments, whether the catheter was still in place or had been removed for any reason other than routine maintenance was determined.
The overall rate of any urinary catheter use per 100 resident-beds over a 1-year period was 4.8 (range 1.0-9.9, median 5.1). Of the 228 residents meeting eligibility criteria, a documented indication for the catheter was present in the NH record for 195 (86%). Of those with a documented indication, 99% (n = 193) had one or more indications deemed appropriate, including urinary retention (83%), pressure ulcer (21%), hospice care (10%), and need for accurate measurement of input and output (6%). The urinary catheter was removed at some point during the period of observation in 49% (n = 111) of participants; those with a shorter duration of catheter use before study enrollment were more likely to have the catheter removed during the follow-up period. Of the 111 residents who had the catheter removed, 58 (52.3%) had it reinserted at some point during follow-up.
These findings suggest that indwelling urinary catheter use in long-stay NH residents is uncommon and generally appropriate and that efforts to improve catheter care and outcomes should extend beyond a singular focus on reducing use.
描述疗养院中留置导尿管的使用情况。
观察性队列研究。
采用有目的抽样策略,从28家康涅狄格州疗养院中选取了一个多样化的样本,这些疗养院根据所有权、质量评级和床位规模进行定义。
研究疗养院中长时间居住(>100天)且在1年期间任何时间留置导尿管的居民。
确定导尿管使用时长,并记录导尿管置入指征。被认为合适的指征包括尿潴留或出口梗阻、压疮(3期或4期且有尿液污染风险)、临终关怀以及需要精确测量出入量。在每季度的随访评估中,确定导尿管是否仍在位,或因常规维护以外的任何原因已被拔除。
在1年期间,每100个居民床位的任何导尿管总体使用率为4.8(范围1.0 - 9.9,中位数5.1)。在符合资格标准的228名居民中,疗养院记录中有195名(86%)有导尿管置入的记录指征。在有记录指征的居民中,99%(n = 193)有一项或多项被认为合适的指征,包括尿潴留(83%)、压疮(21%)、临终关怀(10%)以及需要精确测量出入量(6%)。49%(n = 111)的参与者在观察期内的某个时间点拔除了导尿管;研究入组前导尿管使用时间较短的参与者在随访期间更有可能拔除导尿管。在111名拔除导尿管的居民中,58名(52.3%)在随访期间的某个时间点重新置入了导尿管。
这些发现表明,长时间居住在疗养院的居民中留置导尿管的使用并不常见,且通常是合适的,改善导尿管护理及结果的努力不应仅局限于单纯关注减少使用。