ReviewJournal of infection prevention2014
Point prevalence survey of urinary catheterisation in care homes and where they were inserted, 2012.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: synopsis of the CATHETER II RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Trial
- Preventing urinary tract infection in older people living in care homes: the 'StOP UTI' realist synthesis.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Review
- Strategies for older people living in care homes to prevent urinary tract infection: the StOP UTI realist synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Review
- Use of indwelling urinary catheters in nursing home residents: results from a cross-sectional study in 21 German nursing homes.BMC urology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.