Improving clinical o utcomes u tilising a new Intermittent Catheter

1. No. A01 Improving clinical outcomes utilising a new Intermittent Catheter Alison Overton RN Div.1 , Continence Nurse Advisor , Cert.IV Training and Assessment Gayle Kitely RN Div.1 Bayside Urology, Mentone, Victoria Posters Proudly Supported by: Introduction Results Educating of patients to use intermittent catheters can be difficult. There are many types of intermittent catheters available a clinician may use in patient management. While this broad choice is helpful, it can be simultaneously confusing with regards to selection. Urinary tract infection is a well documented complication with intermittent catheter usage. (Ref. 1 and 2). So how do we, as clinicians, choose which will suit each persons clinical and lifestyle requirements to best manage infection prevention and encourage their compliance with treatment? A user satisfaction study was developed to assess client response to a ‘no touch, pre lubricated’ catheter new to our market. Evaluations were tabulated after collection and data recorded in a single spreadsheet. Qualitative data revealed product attributes concerning convenience, ease of use (especially when travelling or working, and improved hygiene (less cleaning and handling and easy disposal of single use product). (Fig.1) • Aim • Our comparative user study was designed to • Evaluate the client response to use of Hollister’s InstantCath no touch, single use, pre lubricated intermittent catheter compared to the standard non lubricated nelaton catheters currently used as product of choice at our facility • Capture their experiences around ease of use, comfort and cost. • Methods • Selection criteria determined – based on medical history and ability to self catheterise • Development of evaluation form to provide demographic data and capture experiences around ease of use, comfort and cost • Liaise with company for 1 month supply of appropriate size catheter for each participant enrolled in study • Standardised set of education tools used – verbal instruction/discussion, written instructions given to each client enrolled and clinician demonstrated technique for product insertion • Client given evaluation form • Study duration between 3 and4 weeks for each client • Collection of evaluations – results evaluated( Fig.1) Conclusions We believe, after completing this evaluation, that there is consumer need for a convenient pre lubricated, no touch intermittent catheter more education follow up may be needed for some and better funding of products for long term users would be helpful. While numbers in this study were small , it suggests improved clinical and lifestyle outcomes for clients can be achieved using this type of product. Users appreciated the products simplicity and 90.5% have continued to use. References 1.Intermittent catheterization practices following spinal cord injury: a national survey. Woodbury MG ,Hayes KC, AskesHK.Can J urol.2008 Jun; 1593):4065-71 2.No-touch catheterisation and infection rate in a Select Spinal Cord Injured population. R.Charbonneau –Smith. Rehabilitation Nursing Volume 18,No 5 Sept/Oct 1993 Acknowledgements Bayside Urology, Mentone ,Victoria Hollister