What do patients say about their experience with urinary catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters?
Medical device
PICC
Patient experience
Patient safety
Urinary catheter
Journal
American journal of infection control
ISSN: 1527-3296
Titre abrégé: Am J Infect Control
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8004854
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2019
09 2019
Historique:
received:
12
03
2019
revised:
29
05
2019
accepted:
29
05
2019
pubmed:
22
7
2019
medline:
15
5
2020
entrez:
21
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Little is known about the patient experience with urinary catheters or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). We sought to better understand patient perspectives on having a urinary catheter or a PICC by reviewing open-ended comments made by patients about having either of these 2 devices. As part of a larger study, we asked patients about certain catheter-related complications at the time of catheter placement and on days 14, 30, and 70 (PICCs only). In this larger project, we performed a structured assessment that included an open-ended question about other comments (initial interview) or problems (follow-up interview) associated with the device. For the current study, we conducted a descriptive analysis of these open-ended comments, classifying them as positive, negative, or neutral. Positive comments about urinary catheters accounted for 9 of 147 comments (6%), whereas positive comments about PICCs accounted for 10 of 100 comments (10%). Positive comments for both catheter types were mostly related to convenience. More than 80% of comments about both types of devices were negative and fell into the following areas: catheter malfunction; pain, irritation, or discomfort; interference with activities of daily living; provider error; and other. Our findings underscore the need to optimize the patient experience with placement, ongoing use, and removal of urinary catheters and PICCs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Little is known about the patient experience with urinary catheters or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). We sought to better understand patient perspectives on having a urinary catheter or a PICC by reviewing open-ended comments made by patients about having either of these 2 devices.
METHODS
As part of a larger study, we asked patients about certain catheter-related complications at the time of catheter placement and on days 14, 30, and 70 (PICCs only). In this larger project, we performed a structured assessment that included an open-ended question about other comments (initial interview) or problems (follow-up interview) associated with the device. For the current study, we conducted a descriptive analysis of these open-ended comments, classifying them as positive, negative, or neutral.
RESULTS
Positive comments about urinary catheters accounted for 9 of 147 comments (6%), whereas positive comments about PICCs accounted for 10 of 100 comments (10%). Positive comments for both catheter types were mostly related to convenience. More than 80% of comments about both types of devices were negative and fell into the following areas: catheter malfunction; pain, irritation, or discomfort; interference with activities of daily living; provider error; and other.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings underscore the need to optimize the patient experience with placement, ongoing use, and removal of urinary catheters and PICCs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31324486
pii: S0196-6553(19)30612-1
doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.05.031
pmc: PMC6945769
mid: NIHMS1063985
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1130-1134Subventions
Organisme : HSRD VA
ID : I01 HX001101
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc.
Références
Nurs Times. 2013 Nov 6-12;109(44):12, 14
pubmed: 24371877
Contemp Nurse. 2014;48(1):26-35
pubmed: 25410192
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jul;28(7):574-581
pubmed: 30683751
Support Care Cancer. 2016 Dec;24(12):4987-4992
pubmed: 27460015
Qual Health Res. 2016 Jan;26(2):154-63
pubmed: 25646001
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999 Dec;47(12):1453-7
pubmed: 10591242
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016 Sep;37(9):1098-100
pubmed: 27225225
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 2;374(22):2111-9
pubmed: 27248619
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Feb;26(2):441-449
pubmed: 28707169
Am J Med. 2018 Jun;131(6):651-660
pubmed: 29408616
Br J Gen Pract. 2014 Jun;64(623):e364-71
pubmed: 24868074
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2014 Nov-Dec;41(6):597-603
pubmed: 25198153
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Sep 17;159(6):401-10
pubmed: 24042368
J Adv Nurs. 2016 Jun;72(6):1335-46
pubmed: 26893125
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Aug 1;178(8):1078-1085
pubmed: 29971436
Burns. 2016 Nov;42(7):1439-1444
pubmed: 27156805
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010 Jul;40(1):60-6
pubmed: 20638981
J Patient Saf. 2019 Dec;15(4):293-295
pubmed: 26558650
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Jul;54(7):1055-61
pubmed: 16866675