Search

Purpose: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) risk for female patients by implementing a female external urinary collection (FEUC) device with suction as an alternative to indwelling catheter (IDC)., Participants and Setting: Participants were female patients admitted to our 386-bed community hospital in Southern California and who required urinary management., Approach: We implemented a comprehensive CAUTI prevention program in 2014 that was in place for 1.5 years before this project was started. The CAUTI prevention program was based on the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention's CAUTI prevention recommendations. To supplement our CAUTI prevention efforts in our female patients, we implemented the FEUC device in our intensive care, telemetry, medical-surgical, orthopedic, and acute rehabilitations inpatient care units. Indwelling catheter use and CAUTI cases were identified by our Infection Prevention department., Outcomes: Prior to introduction of the FEUC device, in 2015, the baseline female IDC utilization rate was 31.7% (7181 IDC device-days/22,656 patient-days) and the female CAUTI rate was 1.11 (8 cases/7181 IDC device-days) per 1000 days. Following introduction of the device, both rates declined. In 2016, the IDC utilization rate was 29.7% (P = .000) and the CAUTI rate was 0% (P =.005). We continued to observe a reduction in 2017 IDC utilization rates of 26% (P = .000); the 2017 CAUTI rate of 0.90 was not significantly different to our prior year rate (P = .726)., Implications for Practice: We found that the introduction of the FEUC device reduced the risk for CAUTI. We will continue to prioritize the use of external devices for urinary management to help reduce the risk of our patients developing CAUTI.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare bacteriological urinalysis findings using 3 urinary sample collection methods (clean stoma catheterization, urine dripping from the stoma, urine collected from the clean urostomy pouch) in ileal conduit urinary diversion patients., Design: Randomized controlled trial., Sample and Setting: Twenty-seven patients with ileal conduit urinary diversion from an outpatient urology clinic were enrolled; 9 patients were seen twice, for a total of 36 subjects and comparisons., Methods: Data were collected during a clinic visit by a trained research nurse. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: group A had the first urine sample collected by clean stoma catheterization, followed by sample collection by urine dripping from the stoma; group B had the first urine sample collection by urine dripping from the stoma, followed by sample collected by clean stoma catheterization. All patients had a third urine sample collected from a factory-clean urostomy pouch. Bacteriological urinalysis findings were compared among methods. Descriptive analyses were summarized using mean, percentage, and frequency. The mean ages of the patients between the groups were compared with the t test. Other between-group comparisons were performed using the Fisher exact test. Urinary culture finding differences among the same patients were evaluated using the McNemar test. Sensitivity and specificity of the different urine sample collection methods were calculated assuming urine sample collection by catheterization as a reference method., Results: Uropathogen bacteria were detected in urinary culture in 16 of 36 samples (44%) collected by clean stoma catheterization, 15 of 36 samples (42%) collected by urine dripping directly from the stoma, and 13 of 35 samples (37%) collected from the clean urostomy pouch. Significant differences among the urine collection methods were not detected. Assuming catheterization as the most reliable method of sample collection, the sensitivity and specificity of the urine dripping from stoma collection method were 81.3% and 90.0%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the urostomy pouch collection method were 73.3% and 90.0%, respectively. Among the same patients, there were no significant differences in the incidence of uropathogen bacteria when clean stoma catheterization was compared with urine dripping from the stoma and urostomy pouch methods., Conclusion: This study provides clinically relevant information regarding urine collection methods in ileal conduit patients. Urinary sample collection by urine dripping directly from the stoma or collected from a clean urostomy pouch provided similar uropathogen bacteria findings compared with sample collection by clean stoma catheterization.