The American journal of the medical sciences · 2011
The effect of urinary bladder catheterization on patient care in an internal medicine department.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Shimoni Zvi, Mullerad Michael, Niven Mark, Feuchtwanger Zeev, Froom Paul
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Recommendations for urinary catheterization in newly hospitalized patients are inconsistent and unclear.
METHODS: The authors studied prospectively consecutive patients who were catheterized in an internal medicine department over a 3-month period, with follow-up for 6 months or until the catheter was removed. Patient records were reviewed to determine if catheterization was definitely not indicated by commonly accepted criteria. After chart review, a category of possibly not indicated was defined as having no demonstrable effect on patient care.
RESULTS: There were 17.7% patients (122/691) catheterized during their admission. According to accepted criteria, definite inappropriate catheterization occurred in 18 patients (14.7%). There were an additional 69 patients (56.6%) with unclear clinical benefits, hospitalized because of fever, acute congestive heart failure, a cerebral vascular accident or respiratory insufficiency due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive lung disease. During hospitalization, attempts to remove the catheter failed in 13 patients, 4 of who remained with the catheter permanently, complicated by urosepsis in 1 patient.
CONCLUSION: Over 50% of the patients had acceptable indications for catheterization but no demonstrable benefit from the procedure. In such patients, the uncertain benefits of catheterization should be balanced by potential complications. Additional studies are warranted to determine the effect of acute urinary catheterization on patient care.
METHODS: The authors studied prospectively consecutive patients who were catheterized in an internal medicine department over a 3-month period, with follow-up for 6 months or until the catheter was removed. Patient records were reviewed to determine if catheterization was definitely not indicated by commonly accepted criteria. After chart review, a category of possibly not indicated was defined as having no demonstrable effect on patient care.
RESULTS: There were 17.7% patients (122/691) catheterized during their admission. According to accepted criteria, definite inappropriate catheterization occurred in 18 patients (14.7%). There were an additional 69 patients (56.6%) with unclear clinical benefits, hospitalized because of fever, acute congestive heart failure, a cerebral vascular accident or respiratory insufficiency due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive lung disease. During hospitalization, attempts to remove the catheter failed in 13 patients, 4 of who remained with the catheter permanently, complicated by urosepsis in 1 patient.
CONCLUSION: Over 50% of the patients had acceptable indications for catheterization but no demonstrable benefit from the procedure. In such patients, the uncertain benefits of catheterization should be balanced by potential complications. Additional studies are warranted to determine the effect of acute urinary catheterization on patient care.