Aims To determine a safe bactericidal cleaning method that does not damage urethral catheters used for intermittent catheterization. In some countries, single‐use catheters are the norm; in others, the reuse of catheters is common depending on health insurance, personal preference, or individual concerns about the environment. However, no recent study of cleaning methods has been published to provide evidence for the safe reuse of catheters. Methods Using advanced microbiological methods, a laboratory study of eight cleaning methods was conducted. Sections of uncoated polyvinylchloride (PVC) catheters were exposed to bacterial uropathogens in physiologically correct artificial urine media then tested with a range of heat, chemical, and mechanical cleaning methods. Analysis of culturable and viable but nonculturable (VBNC) bacteria was done and direct microscopy was used. Descriptive statistics were used to compare values. Results Heat treatments, although effective, resulted in catheter surface breakdown and damage. Ultrasonic cleaning and vinegar showed evidence of VBNC populations indicating the methods were bacteriostatic. Detergent and water wash followed by immersion in a commercially available 0.6% sodium hypochlorite solution and 16.5% sodium chloride (diluted Milton) gave consistent bactericidal results and no visible catheter damage. Conclusions Combined mechanical and chemical treatment of a detergent and water wash followed by immersion in diluted Milton (the “Milton Method”) provided consistent and effective cleaning of uncoated PVC catheters, showing bactericidal action for all uropathogens tested after repeated exposure. If found safe in clinical testing, this method could increase the reuse of catheters, reduce plastic waste in the environment, reduce cost, and increase patient choice.
ObjectiveTo compare the performance of three continence management devices and absorbent pads used by men with persistent urinary incontinence (>1 year) after treatment for prostate cancer. Patients and MethodsRandomised, controlled trial of 56 men with 1-year follow-up. Three devices were tested for 3 weeks each: sheath drainage system, body-worn urinal (BWU) and penile clamp. Device and pad performance were assessed. Quality of life (QoL) was measured at baseline and follow-up with the King's Health Questionnaire. Stated (intended use) and revealed (actual use) preference for products were assessed. Value-for-money was gathered. ResultsSubstantial and significant differences in performance were found. The sheath was rated as 'good' for extended use (e.g. golf and travel) when pad changing is difficult; for keeping skin dry, not leaking, not smelling and convenient for storage and travel. The BWU was generally rated worse than the sheath and was mainly used for similar activities but by men who could not use a sheath (e.g. retracted penis) and was not good for seated activities. The clamp was good for short vigorous activities like swimming/exercise; it was the most secure, least likely to leak, most discreet but almost all men described it as uncomfortable or painful. The pads were good for everyday activities and best for night-time use; most easy to use, comfortable when dry but most likely to leak and most uncomfortable when wet. There was a preference for having a mixture of products to meet daytime needs; around two-thirds of men were using a combination of pads and devices after testing compared with baseline. ConclusionsThis is the first trial to systematically compare different continence management devices for men. Pads and devices have different strengths, which make them particularly suited to certain circumstances and activities. Most men prefer to use pads at night but would choose a mixture of pads and devices during the day. Device limitations were important but may be overcome by better design. Keywordspenile compression device, body-worn urinal, sheath drainage system, King's Health Questionnaire, quality of life IntroductionProstate cancer is the commonest male cancer in the UK [1]. About 10-15% of men who undergo surgical or non-surgical treatment for prostate cancer will be left with lifelong urinary incontinence (UI) [2][3][4]. UI has major negative effects on quality of life (QoL) and social interactions [5][6][7][8][9][10][11], and is associated with long-term morbidities such as skin injury, UTI, falls, and increased hospital stays [12]. For those who do not regain continence, absorbent pads or alternative products and devices are required to maintain social continence.In addition to the usual choice of absorbent pads, other continence products include penile compression devices (clamp), sheath/condom drainage systems (sheath), and bodyworn urinals (BWU). In the UK the latter two are available on NHS prescription. However, their market share is low compared with the use of absorbent pro...
Background many people living at home with dementia (PLWD) also have poorly managed toilet-use or incontinence problems with damaging consequences for both people with dementia, unpaid carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Currently, there are no theoretically or empirically based interventions to help. The underlying causes and subsequent consequences of these problems need to be fully understood in order to support the development of interventions that have the potential to decrease the impact of these problems on people’s lives. Aim to establish the range of causes, consequences and potential solutions of toilet-use and incontinence problems for PLWD and their carers. Method a qualitative design was used. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with PLWD, carers and HCPs (continence or dementia nurses). PLWD and carers were recruited via www.joindementiaresearch.nihr.ac.uk and via dementia/carer groups. Nurses were recruited via their employers. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework analysis was used to interpret the data to address the goal of the research. Results in total, 45 people (26 unpaid carers, 2 people with dementia, 9 continence and 8 dementia HCPs) took part. The causes of toilet-use and incontinence problems were reported to be multi-faceted and complex including those related to dementia (e.g. lack of insight into toileting needs or how to use the toilet), those which are physical (e.g. existing bladder or bowel issues or poor mobility), psychosocial (e.g. inability to ask for help for incontinence) or societal (e.g. fear of stigma), or related to care systems (e.g. lack of expert knowledge) or products (e.g. poor fit or confusing for users). Consequences included harms to physical and mental health, social isolation, increased carer workload and care system resource implications. Conclusion this study provides the first detailed characterisation of the causes and consequences of and potential solutions for incontinence problems for PLWD at home and their carers. Multifaceted and complex problems were identified, layering dementia, physical, psychosocial, societal and care system factors and highlighting contextual variation. This new knowledge provides the essential basis for the (now underway) development of urgently needed practical and implementable interventions for this underserved population.
ObjectivesTo explore the views of intermittent catheter (IC) users regarding the advantages and disadvantages of single-use or reuse of catheters.DesignQualitative study with semi-structured interviews. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.SettingParticipant’s own homes in Hampshire and Dorset, UK.ParticipantsA convenience sample of 39 IC users, aged 23–86 years, using IC for at least 3 months.ResultsThe analysis revealed four main themes: concerns regarding risk of urinary tract infection (UTI); cleaning, preparation and storage; social responsibility; practicalities and location. The main concern was safety, with the fear that reuse could increase risk of UTI compared with single-use sterile catheters. If shown to be safe then around half of participants thought they might consider reusing catheters. The practicalities of cleaning methods (extra products, time and storage) were considered potentially burdensome for reuse; but for single-use, ease of use and instant usability were advantages. Always having a catheter without fear of ‘running out’ was considered an advantage of reuse. Some participants were concerned about environmental impact (waste) and cost of single-use catheters. The potential for reuse was usually dependent on location. The analysis showed that often the disadvantages of single-use could be off-set by the advantages of reuse and vice versa, for example, the need to take many single-use catheters on holiday could be addressed by reuse, while the burden of cleaning would be obviated by single-use.ConclusionsIf shown to be safe with a practical cleaning method, some participants would find reuse an acceptable option, alongside their current single-use method. The choice to use a mixture of single-use and reuse of catheters for different activities (at home, work or holiday) could optimise the perceived advantages and disadvantages of both. The safety and acceptability of such an approach would require testing in a clinical trial.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.