Reuse of intermittent catheters: a qualitative study of IC users' perspectives

Miriam Avery, Jacqui Prieto, Ikumi Okamoto, Samantha Cullen, Bridget Clancy, Katherine N Moore, Margaret Macaulay, Mandy Fader, Miriam Avery, Jacqui Prieto, Ikumi Okamoto, Samantha Cullen, Bridget Clancy, Katherine N Moore, Margaret Macaulay, Mandy Fader

Abstract

Objectives: To explore the views of intermittent catheter (IC) users regarding the advantages and disadvantages of single-use or reuse of catheters.

Design: Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Setting: Participant's own homes in Hampshire and Dorset, UK.

Participants: A convenience sample of 39 IC users, aged 23-86 years, using IC for at least 3 months.

Results: The 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.

Conclusions: If 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.

Keywords: intermittent catheterisation; qualitative interviews; re-use; single-use.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The authors of the papers were funded by the NIHR under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0610-10078).

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Themes, subthemes and coding from analysis of qualitative interviews. UTI, urinary tract infection.

References

    1. McConville A. Patients' experiences of clean intermittent catheterisation. Nurs Times 2002;98:55–6.
    1. Shaw C, Logan K, Webber I, et al. . Effect of clean intermittent self-catheterization on quality of life: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs 2008;61:641–50. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04556.x
    1. Kessler TM, Ryu G, Burkhard FC. Clean intermittent self-catheterization: a burden for the patient? Neurourol Urodyn 2009;28:18–21. 10.1002/nau.20610
    1. Bolinger R, Engberg S. Barriers, complications, adherence, and self-reported quality of life for people using clean intermittent catheterization. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2013;40:83–9. 10.1097/WON.0b013e3182750117
    1. Hooton TM, Bradley SF, Cardenas DD, et al. . Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2010;50:625–63. 10.1086/650482
    1. Kelly L, Spencer S, Barrett G. Using intermittent self-catheters: experiences of people with neurological damage to their spinal cord. Disabil Rehabil 2014;36:220–6. 10.3109/09638288.2013.785606
    1. Wilde MH, Brasch J, Zhang Y. A qualitative descriptive study of self-management issues in people with long-term intermittent urinary catheters. J Adv Nurs 2011;67:1254–63. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05583.x
    1. Chick HE, Hunter KF, Moore KN. Parent and child experiences using a hydrophilic or reused PVC catheter for intermittent catheterisation. J Clin Nurs 2012;22:513–20. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04066.x
    1. Kiddoo D, Sawatzky B, Bascu CD, et al. . Randomized Crossover Trial of Single Use Hydrophilic Coated vs Multiple Use Polyvinylchloride Catheters for Intermittent Catheterization to Determine Incidence of Urinary Infection. J Urol 2015;194:174–9. 10.1016/j.juro.2014.12.096
    1. Fader M. Development and clinical trial of a mixed (multi/single-use) catheter management package for users of intermittent catheterisation: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR), 2013. Programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0610-10078).
    1. McClurg D, Coyle J, Long A, et al. . A two phased study on health care professionals’ perceptions of single or multi-use of intermittent catheters. Int J Nurs Stud 2017;72:83–90. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.04.009
    1. Okamoto I, Prieto J, Avery M, et al. . Intermittent catheter users’ symptom identification, description and management of urinary tract infection: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016453 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016453
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    1. Woodward S. Improving quality of life for men using intermittent self-catheterisation. British Journal of Neuroscience Nursing 2013;9:114–9. 10.12968/bjnn.2013.9.3.114
    1. Dean GE. Are single use catheters worth the expense? J Urol 2015;194:12–13. 10.1016/j.juro.2015.04.071
    1. Wilks S, Morris N, Delgado D, et al. . Development of an effective and acceptable cleaning method to allow safe re-use of plain, uncoated catheters for intermittent catheterization. Neurourol Urodyn 2016;4:449–50.
    1. Neovius K, Håkansson M, Lundqvist T. Cost consequences of single-use and re-use of urinary catheters among patients performing daily intermittent catheterization. Value Health 2015;18:A351–2. 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.644
    1. Bermingham SL, Hodgkinson S, Wright S, et al. . Intermittent self catheterisation with hydrophilic, gel reservoir, and non-coated catheters: a systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2013;346:e8639 10.1136/bmj.e8639
    1. Clark JF, Mealing SJ, Scott DA, et al. . A cost-effectiveness analysis of long-term intermittent catheterisation with hydrophilic and uncoated catheters. Spinal Cord 2016;54:73–7. 10.1038/sc.2015.117
    1. Neovius KE, Lundqvist T. CIC users' preference for catheters reducing the UTI frequency. Value Health 2014;17:A468 10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.1322

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi