Review Article

Can In-Hospital Urinary Catheterization Rates Be Reduced with Benefits Outweighing the Risks?

Authors: Zvi Shimoni, MD, Mark Niven, MD, Paul Froom, MD, MOccH

Abstract

Urinary catheterization has risks and its use should be limited because it is the main cause of healthcare-associated urinary tract infection. Other risks are the potential for urethral injuries and the possibility that the catheter will be left in permanently. Rates of urinary catheterization in internal medicine departments generally range from 8% to 20%, with higher rates in older adult patients. Various attempts have been made to decrease catheterization rates with variable success. A major problem is that the guidelines and criteria for urinary catheterization are inconsistent and open to variable interpretations. More restrictive criteria based on observable patient benefit can reduce rates of urinary catheterization and may improve patient care.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Saint S, Kowalski CP, Kaufman SR, et al. Preventing hospital-acquired urinary tract infection in the United States: a national study. Clin Infect Dis. 2008; 46: 243–250.
 
2. Shimoni Z, Mullerad M, Niven M, et al. The effect of urinary bladder catheterization on patient care in an internal medicine department. Am J Med Sci. 2011; 34: 474–477.
 
3. Munasinghe RL, Yazdani H, Siddique M, et al. Appropriateness of use of indwelling urinary catheters in patients admitted to the medical service. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001; 22: 647–649.
 
4. Apisarnthanarak A, Rutjanawech S, Wichansawakun S, et al. Initial inappropriate urinary catheters use in a tertiary-care center: incidence, risk factors, and outcomes. Am J Infect Control. 2007; 35: 594–599.
 
5. Gokula RR, Hickner JA, Smith MA. Inappropriate use of urinary catheters in elderly patients at a midwestern community teaching hospital. Am J Infect Control. 2004; 32: 196–199.
 
6. Gould CV, Umscheid CA, Agarwal RK, et al. Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31: 319–326.
 
7. Voss AB. Incidence and duration of urinary catheters in hospitalized older adults: before and after implementing a geriatric protocol. J Gerontol Nurs. 2009; 35: 35–41.
 
8. Fakih MG, Pena ME, Shemes S, et al. Effect of establishing guidelines on appropriate urinary catheter placement. Acad Emerg Med. 2010; 17: 337–340.
 
9. van den Broek PJ, Wille JC, van Benthem BH, et al. Urethral catheters: can we reduce use? BMC Urol. 2011; 11: 10
 
10. Topal J, Conklin S, Camp K, et al. Prevention of nosocomial catheter-associated urinary tract infections thorough computerized feedback to physicians and a nurse-directed protocol. Am J Med Qual. 2005; 20: 121–126.
 
11. Knoll BM, Wright D, Ellingson L, et al. Reduction of inappropriate urinary catheter use at a Veterans Affairs hospital through a multifaceted quality improvement project. Clin Infect Dis. 2011; 52: 1283–1290.
 
12. Meddings J, Rogers MA, Macy M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: reminder systems to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections and urinary catheter use in hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2010; 51: 550–560.
 
13. Rothfeld AF, Stickley A. A program to limit urinary catheter use at an acute care hospital. Am J Infect Control. 2010; 38: 568–571.
 
14. Fakih MG, Watson SR, Greene T, et al. Reducing inappropriate urinary catheter use: a statewide effort. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172: 255–260.
 
15. Shimoni Z, Rodrig J, Kamma N, et al. Will more restrictive indications decrease rates of urinary catheterisation? An historical comparative study. BMJ Open. 2012; 2: e000473
 
16. Nieminen MS, Böhm M, Cowie MR, et al. Executive summary of the guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute heart failure: the Task Force on Acute Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 384–416.
 
17. Marco CA, Schoenfeld CN, Hansen KN, et al. Fever in geriatric emergency patients: clinical features associated with serious illness. Ann Emerg Med. 1995; 26: 18–24.
 
18. Nicolle LE. Urinary infections in the elderly; symptomatic or asymptomatic? Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1999; 11: 265–268.
 
19. Pinson AG, Philbrick JT, Lindbeck GH, et al. ED management of acute pyelonephritis in women: a cohort study. Am J Emerg Med. 1994; 12: 271–278.
 
20. Pfisterer MH, Johnson TM, Jenetzky E, et al. Geriatric patients’ preferences for treatment of urinary incontinence: a study of hospitalized, cognitively competent adults aged 80 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007; 55: 2016–2022.
 
21. Williams MP, Wallhagen M, Dowling G. Urinary retention in hospitalized elderly women. J Gerontol Nurs. 1993; 19: 7–14.
 
22. Lee YY, Tsay WL, Lou MF, et al. The effectiveness of implementing a bladder ultrasound programme in neurosurgical units. J Adv Nurs. 2007; 57: 192–200.
 
23. Poisson SN, Johnston SC, Josephson SA. Urinary tract infections complicating stroke: mechanisms, consequences, and possible solutions. Stroke. 2010; 41: e180–e184.
 
24. Wu J, Baguley IJ. Urinary retention in a general rehabilitation unit: prevalence, clinical outcome, and the role of screening. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86: 1772–1777.
 
25. Patel MI, Watts W, Grant A. The optimal form of urinary drainage after acute retention of urine. BJU Int. 2001; 88: 26–29.