J Bremer1, B Domurath2, R Böthig3, A Kaufmann4, V Geng5. 1. BDH-Klinik Greifswald, Karl-Liebknecht-Ring 26a, 17491, Greifswald, Deutschland. 2. Kliniken Beelitz GmbH, Paracelsus-Ring 6A, 14547, Beelitz, Deutschland. bdomurath@yahoo.de. 3. BG Klinikum Hamburg, Bergedorfer Str. 10, 21033, Hamburg, Deutschland. 4. Krankenhaus St. Franziskus, Viersener Str. 450, 41063, Mönchengladbach, Deutschland. 5. Manfred Sauer Stiftung, Neurott 20, 74931, Lobbach, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using the CE mark of therapeutic appliances is, on its own, not sufficient enough for their appropriate and effective application. In order to treat the patient successfully, not jeopardizing the success of the treatment, medical quality criteria for therapeutic appliances care are necessary to acceptably compensate for a patient's disabilities. OBJECTIVES: Medical quality criteria are formulated for the most frequently used urological aids and devices, considering hygienic requirements, international literature and the practical experience of physicians and nurses with regard to the care of patients with neurogenic urinary bladder dysfunction. METHODS: An expert group of urologists, surgeons, rehabilitation physicians and nurses has developed medical quality criteria via a structured consensus procedure. Developing these criteria, the group has taken into account current jurisprudence, the current resource directory of neurourological relevant aids, data from international literature and hygiene requirements. RESULTS: Medical quality requirements are discussed and defined for selected groups of urological devices (single use catheters, indwelling catheters, external catheters, urine bags, templates and diapers as well as devices for the electrostimulation of nerves). CONCLUSION: The presented quality requirements offer the possibility to stabilize quality of care with neurourological relevant therapeutic appliances. The catalogue of therapeutic appliances must be urgently updated. Urinal catheters for single use must be classified as an individual product group. Devices for anterior root stimulation and neuromodulation must be included in the resource directory. The incontinence severity classification needs to be reviewed.
BACKGROUND: Using the CE mark of therapeutic appliances is, on its own, not sufficient enough for their appropriate and effective application. In order to treat the patient successfully, not jeopardizing the success of the treatment, medical quality criteria for therapeutic appliances care are necessary to acceptably compensate for a patient's disabilities. OBJECTIVES: Medical quality criteria are formulated for the most frequently used urological aids and devices, considering hygienic requirements, international literature and the practical experience of physicians and nurses with regard to the care of patients with neurogenic urinary bladder dysfunction. METHODS: An expert group of urologists, surgeons, rehabilitation physicians and nurses has developed medical quality criteria via a structured consensus procedure. Developing these criteria, the group has taken into account current jurisprudence, the current resource directory of neurourological relevant aids, data from international literature and hygiene requirements. RESULTS: Medical quality requirements are discussed and defined for selected groups of urological devices (single use catheters, indwelling catheters, external catheters, urine bags, templates and diapers as well as devices for the electrostimulation of nerves). CONCLUSION: The presented quality requirements offer the possibility to stabilize quality of care with neurourological relevant therapeutic appliances. The catalogue of therapeutic appliances must be urgently updated. Urinal catheters for single use must be classified as an individual product group. Devices for anterior root stimulation and neuromodulation must be included in the resource directory. The incontinence severity classification needs to be reviewed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Catheter; Incontinence; Medical aids and devices; Neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction; Quality criteria
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Jan Krhut; Roman Zachoval; Phillip P Smith; Peter F W M Rosier; Ladislav Valanský; Alois Martan; Peter Zvara Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Sanjay Saint; Samuel R Kaufman; Mary A M Rogers; Paul D Baker; Kathleen Ossenkop; Benjamin A Lipsky Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: J Bremer; R Böthig; B Domurath; J Kutzenberger; A Kaufmann; J Pretzer; J P Klask; V Geng; W Vance; I Kurze Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Rena D Malik; Joshua A Cohn; Pauline A Fedunok; Doreen E Chung; Gregory T Bales Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2016 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Ralf Böthig; Burkhard Domurath; Johannes Kutzenberger; Jörn Bremer; Ines Kurze; Albert Kaufmann; Jana Pretzer; Jens-Peter Klask; Birgitt Kowald; Christian Tiburtius; Klaus Golka; Sven Hirschfeld; Roland Thietje Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc Date: 2020-02-27