Search

Objective To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Seldinger technique by non-urology trained (NUT) doctors for difficult male indwelling urinary catheter (IDC) insertions. Patients and methods In all, 115 patients and 57 participating NUT doctors were recruited by the urologist or urology registrar, when contacted in regards to failed IDC insertion. The successful passage of an IDC by the NUT doctors using the Seldinger technique with a straight, hydrophilic guidewire was assessed in our prospective, multicentre evaluation. Instruction of this technique was via bedside teaching by the urology registrar or via video media. Results The 115 patients, involving 57 NUT doctors, were prospectively evaluated across four sites; 93% (107/115) of cases had successful placement of an IDC with the Seldinger technique by a NUT doctor. No complications with the Seldinger technique were recorded. In 80 patients (69.6%), the technique was successfully performed by a NUT doctor without attendance by a urologist or urology registrar, with instruction provided from video media or prior bedside teaching by the urology registrar. Conclusions Our study is the first to validate the safety and effectiveness of the Seldinger technique for difficult male IDC insertion performed by NUT doctors. This technique can be taught via video education and thus has important implications for health services where urological support is not readily available.

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? A vast literature has been published on the prevalence, morbidity and microbiology of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Research and development in recent years has focused on producing antibacterial coatings for the indwelling Foley catheter with insufficient attention to its design. This article provides a critical examination of the design of the indwelling Foley catheter. Design specifications are outlined for a urine collection device that should reduce the vulnerability of catheterised urinary tract to infection. The indwelling urinary catheter is the most common cause of infections in hospitals and other healthcare facilities [1]. As long ago as 1958, Paul Beeson [2] warned '… the decision to use this instrument should be made with the knowledge that it involves the risk of producing a serious disease which is often difficult to treat'. Since then, scientific studies have progressed revealing a greater understanding of the bladder's defence mechanisms against infection and how they are undermined by the Foley catheter [3-5]. In addition, the complications caused by the development of bacterial biofilms on catheters have been recognised and the ways in which these bacterial communities develop on catheters have become clear [5,6]. It is now obvious that fundamental problems with the basic design of the catheter, which has changed little since it was introduced into urological practice by Dr Fredricc Foley in 1937 [7], induce susceptibility to infection. These issues need to be addressed urgently if we are to produce a device suitable for use in the 21st century.

OBJECTIVE To address the usability and safety aspects of current equipment for indwelling urinary catheter (IDC) manipulation, by assessing the attitudes of doctors and nurses to infection control, occupational health and environmental waste, and the perceived adequacy of available catheter packs, particularly drapes, when performing such manipulations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS A self-administered survey instrument was created using an online database and completed by doctors and nurses. The survey covered basic demographics and experience with IDC, attitudes to infection control, occupational health and safety, and the environment, as well as adequacy of current equipment in containing spillage of urine and/or blood. RESULTS In all, 87 doctors and 228 nurses completed 315 of 350 (90%) surveys. Doctors and nurses were concerned about infection control, occupational health and safety issues, and environmental waste. Incidents involving spillage of urine and/or blood often go unreported. There were no differences between nurses and doctors having specialist training in urology or experience (P > 0.05). The second major finding is that available catheter packs, particularly drapes, when manipulating IDCs, are inadequate and spillage is likely. These findings were more pronounced in doctors and those with urology training (P