Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28989371›Full record

ReviewJournal of infection prevention2014

Point prevalence survey of urinary catheterisation in care homes and where they were inserted, 2012.

Cam McNulty, N Q Verlander, K Turner, C Fry

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of infection prevention, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Cam McNultyPublic Health England Primary Care Unit, and Cardiff University, UK.
N Q VerlanderPublic Health England, Statistics Unit, London, UK.
K TurnerPublic Health England Primary Care Unit, UK.
C FryDepartment of Health, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The extent to which the use of catheter care bundles and other interventions has led to a reduction in urinary catheterisation rates is unknown. We aimed to determine current urinary catheterisation rates in care homes with residents over 65 years old, and determine the extent to which residents are discharged from the hospital setting with urinary catheters. A point prevalence questionnaire survey was used in care homes that looked after residents over 65 years in six UK health boards or primary care trusts, to determine urinary catheterisation rates, and where these catheters were inserted. Questionnaires for 445 of 461 care homes (96.5%) were completed, 425 of 445 care homes cared for residents over 65 years; 888 (6.9%) of 12,827 residents had a urethral (82.5%) or supra-pubic (17.5%) urinary catheter. Over half of all catheters (both urethral and suprapubic, 57.4%, 509 of 888 catheters), and 3.1% of all residents had a catheter inserted while the residents were hospital inpatients, and then discharged back to the care home still catheterised. There was a significant variation in urinary catheterisation rates in the care homes surveyed, and rates remain similar to previous English surveys in 2003 and 2009. More still needs to be done to understand the variation in urinary catheterisation rates in care homes and reduce these rates, including the numbers of residents that are discharged from hospital with a urinary catheter.

Indexed as

Auditcare homeshospitalsquestionnaireurinary catheterisation

Identifiers

PMID28989371
PMCPMC5074144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.