ArticleBMJ open2012
Will more restrictive indications decrease rates of urinary catheterisation? An historical comparative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine if more restrictive indications for urinary catheterisation reinforced by daily chart review will lower catheterisation rates.
designAn historical comparative observational study.
settingAn internal medicine department in a regional hospital in Israel.
participantsThe authors compared 882 patients hospitalised after a change in policy to an historical cohort of 690 hospitalised patients. Exclusions included patients less than age 30 and those with bladder outlet obstruction.
interventionEmergency and internal medicine department physicians received instruction on a more restricted urinary catheterisation policy. During daily chart rounds, admissions were discussed with an emphasis on the appropriateness of all new urinary catheter insertions.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was catheterisation rate by admission diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures were the need for post-admission in hospital catheterisations and the rate of indwelling catheters 14 or more days after discharge.
resultsThere was a reduction in catheterisation rate in patients with congestive heart failure from 30/106 (29.3%) to 3/107 (2.8%) (p<0.001), in patients with an admission diagnosis of fever unable to provide a urine sample for culture from 35/132 (26.5%) to 12/153 (7.8%) (p<0.001) and in patients admitted for palliative care from 51.7% (15/29) to 12.0% (3/25) (p=0.002). The overall rate of catheterisation decreased from 17.5% (121/690) to 6.6% (58/882) (p<0.001). There was only one indicated catheterisation after admission due to the change in policy, and the proportion of patients discharged with catheters decreased.
conclusionThe use of more restrictive indications for urinary catheterisation along with daily chart rounds can reduce the rate of urinary catheterisation in an internal medicine department without adverse consequences.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.