Barbara W Trautner1, Sanjay Saint2, Karen E Fowler3, John Van4, Tracey Rosen5, John Colozzi3, Vineet Chopra2, Erica Lescinskas6, Sarah L Krein2. 1. Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. Electronic address: trautner@bcm.edu. 2. Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 5. Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX. 6. Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Abstract
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. Published by Elsevier Inc.
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. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medical device; PICC; Patient experience; Patient safety; Urinary catheter
Authors: Vineet Chopra; Scott Kaatz; Paul Grant; Lakshmi Swaminathan; Tanya Boldenow; Anna Conlon; Steven J Bernstein; Scott A Flanders Journal: Am J Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Sanjay Saint; M Todd Greene; Sarah L Krein; Mary A M Rogers; David Ratz; Karen E Fowler; Barbara S Edson; Sam R Watson; Barbara Meyer-Lucas; Marie Masuga; Kelly Faulkner; Carolyn V Gould; James Battles; Mohamad G Fakih Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paula Parás-Bravo; María Paz-Zulueta; Miguel Santibañez; Cesar Fernández-de-Las-Peñas; Manuel Herrero-Montes; Vanesa Caso-Álvarez; Domingo Palacios-Ceña Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sarah L Krein; Sanjay Saint; Barbara W Trautner; Latoya Kuhn; John Colozzi; David Ratz; Erica Lescinskas; Vineet Chopra Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Mason A Halouska; Zachary A Van Roy; Amanda N Lang; Jacey Hilbers; Angela L Hewlett; Nicolas W Cortes-Penfield Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-07-18