Advanced search
1 file | 91.37 KB Add to list

No-touch intermittent catheterization: caregiver point of view on sterility errors, duration, comfort and costs

(2013) JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING. 69(9). p.2000-2007
Author
Organization
Abstract
Aims. To determine which method of intermittent urinary catheterization, sterile with a catheterization-set or the no-touch method, offers the most advantages for caregivers in a hospital setting Background. The no-touch catheter is assumed to decrease the risk for infection and increase the comfort for caregivers due to its construction, however, evidence is lacking Design. A cross-over experimental study was carried out from October until December 2009, 100 nurses and 71 nursing students participated. Method. Every participant had to catheterize as well according to the no-touch method as to the standard intermittent catheterization method. A randomization programme determined whether the subjects had to catheterize a male or female simulation model. Findings. Multiple regression analysis shows that nurses and nursing students appear to make on average two more errors with the sterile intermittent catheterization method with set than with the no-touch method. The duration of the no-touch method is 92seconds less than the classical catheterization method. On a scale with 10 points for comfort, the classical sterile method with set scored on average two points lower than the no-touch method, as well for the nurses as for the students. Conclusions. Compared with the classical method, both students and nurses spend less time on performing the no-touch method, less sterility errors are made and a higher score is assigned to the no-touch method. Also classical catheterization of men implies higher costs compared with the no-touch method. No-touch intermittent catheterization is thus expected to be preferred above the gold standard catheterization method.
Keywords
TRIAL, RISK, nurses/nursing students, cost-analysis, RISK, comfort, simulation model, sterility errors, no-touch method, intermittent urethral catheterization, cross-over design, URINARY-TRACT-INFECTIONS, COMPLICATIONS, PREVENTION, GUIDELINES

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 91.37 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Goessaert, An-Sofie, Stephanie Antoons, Melissa Van den Driessche, et al. “No-touch Intermittent Catheterization: Caregiver Point of View on Sterility Errors, Duration, Comfort and Costs.” JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING 69.9 (2013): 2000–2007. Print.
APA
Goessaert, A.-S., Antoons, S., Van den Driessche, M., Tourchi, A., Pieters, R., & Everaert, K. (2013). No-touch intermittent catheterization: caregiver point of view on sterility errors, duration, comfort and costs. JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 69(9), 2000–2007.
Chicago author-date
Goessaert, An-Sofie, Stephanie Antoons, Melissa Van den Driessche, Ali Tourchi, Ronny Pieters, and Karel Everaert. 2013. “No-touch Intermittent Catheterization: Caregiver Point of View on Sterility Errors, Duration, Comfort and Costs.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 69 (9): 2000–2007.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Goessaert, An-Sofie, Stephanie Antoons, Melissa Van den Driessche, Ali Tourchi, Ronny Pieters, and Karel Everaert. 2013. “No-touch Intermittent Catheterization: Caregiver Point of View on Sterility Errors, Duration, Comfort and Costs.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 69 (9): 2000–2007.
Vancouver
1.
Goessaert A-S, Antoons S, Van den Driessche M, Tourchi A, Pieters R, Everaert K. No-touch intermittent catheterization: caregiver point of view on sterility errors, duration, comfort and costs. JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING. 2013;69(9):2000–7.
IEEE
[1]
A.-S. Goessaert, S. Antoons, M. Van den Driessche, A. Tourchi, R. Pieters, and K. Everaert, “No-touch intermittent catheterization: caregiver point of view on sterility errors, duration, comfort and costs,” JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 2000–2007, 2013.
@article{4142270,
  abstract     = {{Aims. To determine which method of intermittent urinary catheterization, sterile with a catheterization-set or the no-touch method, offers the most advantages for caregivers in a hospital setting
Background. The no-touch catheter is assumed to decrease the risk for infection and increase the comfort for caregivers due to its construction, however, evidence is lacking
Design. A cross-over experimental study was carried out from October until December 2009, 100 nurses and 71 nursing students participated.
Method. Every participant had to catheterize as well according to the no-touch method as to the standard intermittent catheterization method. A randomization programme determined whether the subjects had to catheterize a male or female simulation model.
Findings. Multiple regression analysis shows that nurses and nursing students appear to make on average two more errors with the sterile intermittent catheterization method with set than with the no-touch method. The duration of the no-touch method is 92seconds less than the classical catheterization method. On a scale with 10 points for comfort, the classical sterile method with set scored on average two points lower than the no-touch method, as well for the nurses as for the students.
Conclusions. Compared with the classical method, both students and nurses spend less time on performing the no-touch method, less sterility errors are made and a higher score is assigned to the no-touch method. Also classical catheterization of men implies higher costs compared with the no-touch method. No-touch intermittent catheterization is thus expected to be preferred above the gold standard catheterization method.}},
  author       = {{Goessaert, An-Sofie and Antoons, Stephanie and Van den Driessche, Melissa and Tourchi, Ali and Pieters, Ronny and Everaert, Karel}},
  issn         = {{0309-2402}},
  journal      = {{JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING}},
  keywords     = {{TRIAL,RISK,nurses/nursing students,cost-analysis,RISK,comfort,simulation model,sterility errors,no-touch method,intermittent urethral catheterization,cross-over design,URINARY-TRACT-INFECTIONS,COMPLICATIONS,PREVENTION,GUIDELINES}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{9}},
  pages        = {{2000--2007}},
  title        = {{No-touch intermittent catheterization: caregiver point of view on sterility errors, duration, comfort and costs}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jan.12062}},
  volume       = {{69}},
  year         = {{2013}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: