MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1002/j.2048-7940.1993.tb00774.x

Медицинская библиотека · Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses · 1993

No-touch catheterization and infection rates in a select spinal cord injured population.

Charbonneau-Smith R

Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

A clinical trial comparing two intermittent catheterization techniques used with spinal cord injured patients at Parkwood Hospital, a long-term care facility in London, ON, Canada, was conducted to evaluate the techniques' effect on urinary tract infections (UTIs). Charts were reviewed retrospectively for 92 patients with traumatic spinal cord injury who were on intermittent catheterization between January 1985 and December 1988. Nearly 80% of these patients had more than one UTI per admission. A convenience sample of 18 patients with traumatic spinal cord injury participated in a prospective study using a no-touch method of catheterization for 7 months. Preliminary findings at the completion of the study revealed that 44.4% of this experimental group had more than one UTI per admission--a 44.5% reduction. The no-touch method using the O'Neil Sterile Field urinary catheter was successful in reducing the total number of infections and duration of infection for the experimental group. A nurse satisfaction questionnaire revealed that nursing staff preferred this method of intermittent catheterization to the traditional method.

Для цитирования: Charbonneau-Smith R. No-touch catheterization and infection rates in a select spinal cord injured population.. Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses. 1993. DOI: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.1993.tb00774.x.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.