British journal of urology · 1995
Urological community nursing: a new concept in the delivery of urological care.
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.
Grose K, Brooman P J, O'Reilly P H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of a urological community nursing service on the mode of practice, efficiency, and quality of care in a urological practice.
METHODS: A urological community nurse was appointed to investigate the possibility of performing various urological procedures in the community rather than in hospital, with a prospective audit of the results for a period of 1 year. The setting was a busy urological unit serving a mixed urban and rural catchment area of 300,000 people. The outcome was assessed by the number and type of procedures successfully transferred from hospital to community practice.
RESULTS: In 1 year, 464 urological episodes were performed in the patients' homes which otherwise would have required transfer or admission to hospital for treatment or, in some cases, a cancelled operation. These episodes included tuition in clean intermittent self-catheterization and dilatation, changes and insertions of urethral, suprapubic and nephrostomy catheters, bladder instillations to treat cancer and interstitial cystitis, voiding trials with no catheter, urosheath fittings, and pre-operative visits and follow-up visits to avoid attendance at the clinic.
CONCLUSIONS: The urological community nursing service transferred a significant number of routine urological procedures from hospital to community with considerable financial savings and improvement in the quality and efficiency of urological care.
METHODS: A urological community nurse was appointed to investigate the possibility of performing various urological procedures in the community rather than in hospital, with a prospective audit of the results for a period of 1 year. The setting was a busy urological unit serving a mixed urban and rural catchment area of 300,000 people. The outcome was assessed by the number and type of procedures successfully transferred from hospital to community practice.
RESULTS: In 1 year, 464 urological episodes were performed in the patients' homes which otherwise would have required transfer or admission to hospital for treatment or, in some cases, a cancelled operation. These episodes included tuition in clean intermittent self-catheterization and dilatation, changes and insertions of urethral, suprapubic and nephrostomy catheters, bladder instillations to treat cancer and interstitial cystitis, voiding trials with no catheter, urosheath fittings, and pre-operative visits and follow-up visits to avoid attendance at the clinic.
CONCLUSIONS: The urological community nursing service transferred a significant number of routine urological procedures from hospital to community with considerable financial savings and improvement in the quality and efficiency of urological care.