D McClurg1, J Coyle2, A Long3, K Moore4, A Cottenden5, C May6, M Fader7. 1. NMAHP RU, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK. Electronic address: Doreen.mcclurg@gcu.ac.uk. 2. NMAHP RU, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK. Electronic address: joannecoyle2002@hotmail.com. 3. Cx Products & Services, Sheffield, S6 5SQ, UK. Electronic address: cxproducts1@gmail.com. 4. University of Alberta, Faculty of Nursing, Edmonton, Canada. Electronic address: knmoore@ualberta.ca. 5. Dept. Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, First Floor Wolfson House, 2-10 Stephenson Way, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. Electronic address: a.cottenden@ucl.ac.uk. 6. Southampton University faculty of Health Sciences, Southampton University, SO16 6YD, UK. Electronic address: c.r.may@soton.ac.uk. 7. University of Southampton, Faculty of Health Sciences, Southampton General Hospital, Clinical Academic Facility,South Academic Block, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK. Electronic address: mandy.fader@soton.ac.uk.
Abstract
AIMS: This two phase study aimed to explore health care professionals' teaching and prescribing practice related to intermittent catheterisation and to identify their perceptions about the possible implementation of a mixed (single and multi-use) package for intermittent catheterization. INTRODUCTION: Single-use intermittent catheters are the norm in the UK although multi-use is common in some other countries. A recent Cochrane review found no difference in complications, including urinary tract infection rates, between those using single or multi-use catheters. A flexible option of both multi-use and single use intermittent catheters could provide users with more flexible choices in self-care. However, understanding health care professionals' perspectives is one of the keys to developing a multi-use intervention. DESIGN: A qualitative research framework using in-depth interviews to inform an on line survey. METHOD: In-depth interviews were conducted with health care professionals based in the UK who prescribe catheters, teach intermittent catheterisation or manage an intermittent catheterisation service. The interviewees were selected to represent a range of clinical areas, experience and professions - continence advisors, urology, multiple sclerosis (MS) and spinal cord injury specialist nurses, and General Practitioners. Following framework analysis the themes and factors identified were used to develop an on-line survey which was disseminated through health care professional networks whose members saw patients who use intermittent catheters. RESULTS: Nineteen health care professionals participated in the telephone interviews; 206 completed the survey. A wide range of professionals in terms of experience and specialty afforded rich information regarding the contextual issues around the teaching and prescribing of intermittent catheters. The primary finding was that health care professionals were concerned about 'minimising health risk' and maximising 'normalcy' for those using intermittent self-catheterisation. Health care professionals who worked in the acute setting or had no experience of re-use were most resistant to the re-use of catheters. Professionals requested evidence that a multi-use package would not increase the risk of developing a urinary tract infection or increase the burden of use to a patient before a mixed package would be considered. CONCLUSIONS: For multi-use to be acceptable, evidence based guidelines must be available for healthcare professionals and cleaning methods must be acceptable and safe for intermittent catheter users. Further evidence may be required to establish that a mixed catheter package is equivalent to single use only, particularly for outcomes such as urinary tract infection, urethral injury and quality of life. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This paper highlights that if multi-use catheters are to be successfully introduced into clinical practice, the ease of use, safety and effectiveness of the cleaning technique will need to be convincingly demonstrated by a range of well-defined users.
AIMS: This two phase study aimed to explore health care professionals' teaching and prescribing practice related to intermittent catheterisation and to identify their perceptions about the possible implementation of a mixed (single and multi-use) package for intermittent catheterization. INTRODUCTION: Single-use intermittent catheters are the norm in the UK although multi-use is common in some other countries. A recent Cochrane review found no difference in complications, including urinary tract infection rates, between those using single or multi-use catheters. A flexible option of both multi-use and single use intermittent catheters could provide users with more flexible choices in self-care. However, understanding health care professionals' perspectives is one of the keys to developing a multi-use intervention. DESIGN: A qualitative research framework using in-depth interviews to inform an on line survey. METHOD: In-depth interviews were conducted with health care professionals based in the UK who prescribe catheters, teach intermittent catheterisation or manage an intermittent catheterisation service. The interviewees were selected to represent a range of clinical areas, experience and professions - continence advisors, urology, multiple sclerosis (MS) and spinal cord injury specialist nurses, and General Practitioners. Following framework analysis the themes and factors identified were used to develop an on-line survey which was disseminated through health care professional networks whose members saw patients who use intermittent catheters. RESULTS: Nineteen health care professionals participated in the telephone interviews; 206 completed the survey. A wide range of professionals in terms of experience and specialty afforded rich information regarding the contextual issues around the teaching and prescribing of intermittent catheters. The primary finding was that health care professionals were concerned about 'minimising health risk' and maximising 'normalcy' for those using intermittent self-catheterisation. Health care professionals who worked in the acute setting or had no experience of re-use were most resistant to the re-use of catheters. Professionals requested evidence that a multi-use package would not increase the risk of developing a urinary tract infection or increase the burden of use to a patient before a mixed package would be considered. CONCLUSIONS: For multi-use to be acceptable, evidence based guidelines must be available for healthcare professionals and cleaning methods must be acceptable and safe for intermittent catheter users. Further evidence may be required to establish that a mixed catheter package is equivalent to single use only, particularly for outcomes such as urinary tract infection, urethral injury and quality of life. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This paper highlights that if multi-use catheters are to be successfully introduced into clinical practice, the ease of use, safety and effectiveness of the cleaning technique will need to be convincingly demonstrated by a range of well-defined users.