MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of advanced nursing · 2012
No-touch intermittent catheterization: caregiver point of view on sterility errors, duration, comfort and costs.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Goessaert An-Sofie, Antoons Stephanie, Van Den Driessche Melissa, Tourchi Ali, Pieters Ronny, Everaert Karel
Аннотация
AIMS: To determine which method of intermittent urinary catheterization, sterile with a catheterization-set or the no-touch method, offers the most advantages for caregivers in a hospital setting
BACKGROUND: The no-touch catheter is assumed to decrease the risk for infection and increase the comfort for caregivers due to its construction, however, evidence is lacking
DESIGN: A cross-over experimental study was carried out from October until December 2009, 100 nurses and 71 nursing students participated.
METHOD: Every participant had to catheterize as well according to the no-touch method as to the standard intermittent catheterization method. A randomization programme determined whether the subjects had to catheterize a male or female simulation model.
FINDINGS: Multiple regression analysis shows that nurses and nursing students appear to make on average two more errors with the sterile intermittent catheterization method with set than with the no-touch method. The duration of the no-touch method is 92 seconds less than the classical catheterization method. On a scale with 10 points for comfort, the classical sterile method with set scored on average two points lower than the no-touch method, as well for the nurses as for the students.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the classical method, both students and nurses spend less time on performing the no-touch method, less sterility errors are made and a higher score is assigned to the no-touch method. Also classical catheterization of men implies higher costs compared with the no-touch method. No-touch intermittent catheterization is thus expected to be preferred above the gold standard catheterization method.
BACKGROUND: The no-touch catheter is assumed to decrease the risk for infection and increase the comfort for caregivers due to its construction, however, evidence is lacking
DESIGN: A cross-over experimental study was carried out from October until December 2009, 100 nurses and 71 nursing students participated.
METHOD: Every participant had to catheterize as well according to the no-touch method as to the standard intermittent catheterization method. A randomization programme determined whether the subjects had to catheterize a male or female simulation model.
FINDINGS: Multiple regression analysis shows that nurses and nursing students appear to make on average two more errors with the sterile intermittent catheterization method with set than with the no-touch method. The duration of the no-touch method is 92 seconds less than the classical catheterization method. On a scale with 10 points for comfort, the classical sterile method with set scored on average two points lower than the no-touch method, as well for the nurses as for the students.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the classical method, both students and nurses spend less time on performing the no-touch method, less sterility errors are made and a higher score is assigned to the no-touch method. Also classical catheterization of men implies higher costs compared with the no-touch method. No-touch intermittent catheterization is thus expected to be preferred above the gold standard catheterization method.