[Assessment of Risk Factors for Reinsertion of Indwelling Urinary Catheters Despite Intervention for Voiding Disturbances by the Urination Care Team].

Masayuki Kurokawa, Fumiko Okada, Kosuke Ogawa, Yoshiyuki Okada, Mitsue Ito, Manami Shimizu, Takahiro Nonaka, Kazutoshi Okubo
{"title":"[Assessment of Risk Factors for Reinsertion of Indwelling Urinary Catheters Despite Intervention for Voiding Disturbances by the Urination Care Team].","authors":"Masayuki Kurokawa, Fumiko Okada, Kosuke Ogawa, Yoshiyuki Okada, Mitsue Ito, Manami Shimizu, Takahiro Nonaka, Kazutoshi Okubo","doi":"10.14989/ActaUrolJap_70_10_323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A urination care team comprising professionals from various fields was developed. This team intervened during hospitalization of patients who were either expected to have voiding disturbances following the removal of indwelling urinary catheters or develop voiding disturbances following catheter removal during hospitalization. The team aims to remove unnecessary indwelling urinary catheters and promote patient independence during urination. However, if patients do not achieve spontaneous micturition or clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) during their hospital stay, an indwelling urinary catheter is reinserted. In this study, risk factors for indwelling urinary catheter reinsertion were retrospectively analyzed during hospitalization. In total, 98 patients from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020, were examined at Kyoto Katsura Hospital, where the urination care team intervened due to voiding disturbances with residual urine of ≥100 ml. At discharge, 46 (46%) patients were able to urinate independently, 9 (9%) were voiding through a diaper, 14 (14%) practiced CISC, and 29 (30%) had indwelling urinary catheters. Multivariate analysis revealed that age ≥75 years (p=0.03), a cognitive functional independence measure (FIM) score of ≤25 on admission (p<0.01), and residual urine of ≥300 ml at intervention (p=0.03) were independent risk factors affecting the indwelling urinary catheter reinsertion. The indwelling urinary catheter non-reinsertion and reinsertion groups demonstrated significant improvement in the FIM total and motor scores between admission and discharge ; however, the FIM cognitive score did not show any statistically significant difference.</p>","PeriodicalId":39291,"journal":{"name":"Acta Urologica Japonica","volume":"70 10","pages":"323-330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Urologica Japonica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14989/ActaUrolJap_70_10_323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A urination care team comprising professionals from various fields was developed. This team intervened during hospitalization of patients who were either expected to have voiding disturbances following the removal of indwelling urinary catheters or develop voiding disturbances following catheter removal during hospitalization. The team aims to remove unnecessary indwelling urinary catheters and promote patient independence during urination. However, if patients do not achieve spontaneous micturition or clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) during their hospital stay, an indwelling urinary catheter is reinserted. In this study, risk factors for indwelling urinary catheter reinsertion were retrospectively analyzed during hospitalization. In total, 98 patients from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020, were examined at Kyoto Katsura Hospital, where the urination care team intervened due to voiding disturbances with residual urine of ≥100 ml. At discharge, 46 (46%) patients were able to urinate independently, 9 (9%) were voiding through a diaper, 14 (14%) practiced CISC, and 29 (30%) had indwelling urinary catheters. Multivariate analysis revealed that age ≥75 years (p=0.03), a cognitive functional independence measure (FIM) score of ≤25 on admission (p<0.01), and residual urine of ≥300 ml at intervention (p=0.03) were independent risk factors affecting the indwelling urinary catheter reinsertion. The indwelling urinary catheter non-reinsertion and reinsertion groups demonstrated significant improvement in the FIM total and motor scores between admission and discharge ; however, the FIM cognitive score did not show any statistically significant difference.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[评估留置导尿管再次插入的危险因素,尽管排尿护理小组干预排尿障碍]。
建立了由各领域专业人员组成的排尿护理团队。该团队在住院期间对那些在拔除留置导尿管后可能出现排尿障碍或在拔除导尿管后出现排尿障碍的患者进行干预。该团队旨在消除不必要的留置导尿管,并促进患者排尿时的独立性。然而,如果患者在住院期间没有实现自然排尿或清洁的间歇自我导尿(CISC),则重新插入留置导尿管。本研究回顾性分析住院期间留置导尿管再次留置的危险因素。2018年1月1日至2020年12月31日期间,共有98名患者在京都克sura医院接受了检查,由于残余尿≥100 ml的排尿障碍,排尿护理团队进行了干预。出院时,46名(46%)患者能够独立排尿,9名(9%)患者通过纸尿片排尿,14名(14%)患者采用CISC, 29名(30%)患者采用留置导尿管。多因素分析显示,年龄≥75岁(p=0.03)、入院时认知功能独立性评分(FIM)≤25分(p<0.01)、干预时残尿≥300 ml (p=0.03)是影响留置导尿管再次插入的独立危险因素。留置导尿管组和未留置导尿管组在入院和出院期间FIM总分和运动评分均有显著改善;然而,FIM认知得分没有显示出任何统计学上的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Urologica Japonica
Acta Urologica Japonica Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
74
期刊最新文献
[The Case of Solitary Adrenal Metastasis of Urothelial Carcinoma]. [The Introduction of Pubic Hair into the Bladder : A Possibility of an Alternate Mechanism]. [A Case of Metastatic Testicular Cancer after Kidney Transplantation in which Complete Remission was Achieved]. [A Case of Pelvic Arteriovenous Malformation in a Male with Massive Bladder Bleeding which Caused Severe Hemorrhagic Hypovolemic Shock]. [Risk Factor of Cutaneous Symptoms Associated with Enfortumab Vedotin for Urothelial Carcinoma].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1