ArticleSpinal cord2020
Barriers and facilitators to optimising inpatient bladder management after spinal cord injury.
Article in Spinal cord, 2020. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designQualitative survey.
objectivesExamine clinicians' perspectives on adherence to published evidence-based guidelines and clinician-perceived barriers, and facilitators to optimising inpatient bladder management within one Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) service.
settingSurgical Hospital (acute care) and SCI Unit (sub-acute, rehabilitation) in Western Australia (WA).
methodsClinicians reviewed an 'Evidence Matrix' summarising published clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for SCI bladder management. Focus groups examined the extent to which current practice adhered to recommendations and identified perceived barriers and facilitators to optimal management. Data were analysed thematically using a deductive approach.
resultsCurrent management closely mirrors published recommendations. Key facilitators included long-standing prioritisation of rapid progression from urethral indwelling (IDC) to a 6 hourly intermittent catheterisation (IC) protocol; regular competency audits of catheterisation technique; and a Spinal Urology Clinical Nurse Consultant (CNC) position. Barriers included limited resources/staffing; restricted access to Neuro-urology consultation; inter-disciplinary communication gaps; and delays in determining and implementing long-term bladder management.
conclusionsInpatient SCI bladder care in WA closely emulates published evidence, although adherence at other sites may reveal different practices. Bladder management was found to have been facilitated by a strong culture of practice led by Neuro-urologists, informed by evidence and embraced by Senior Clinicians. Further reduction in duration of initial IDC, provision of early and ongoing Neuro-urology consultations as part of standard care, increased interdisciplinary communication and dedicated SCI Urology theatre lists would further optimise management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32457515What 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.