Indwelling Catheter Management: From Habit-based to Evidence-based Practice

  • 12/1/2003
  • 2 Comments
  • 52115 reads
Author(s): 
JoAnn Mercer Smith, BSN, RN, CWOCN

Drainage bags should be hung on the end of the bed with the tubing in a straight line, avoiding looping or kinking to promote unobstructed urine flow.8 Transporting patients with drainage bags positioned on the patients abdomens or between their legs should be avoided. Stainless steel drainage bag holders are available from medical supply companies, or the patient can be taught to use a new plastic trashcan or tub to hang the bag properly.

     Patients and caregivers should receive instructions regarding the following points:
     • Keep drainage bags off the floor below the level of the bladder
     • Do not allow the outlet tube to touch the collection container or floor when emptying
     • Disinfect the urine collection containers after use
     • Empty the drainage bag when 1/2 to 2/3 full to avoid traction on the catheter from the weight of the drainage bag.

     Nurses should be aware that patients might have strong preferences regarding the type of outlet device that works best for them. Patients with disabilities or limited mobility may require a special type of outlet device.

Common Catheter-associated Complications

     Catheter-associated UTI. Much of the recent research on indwelling catheters has focused on the role of biofilms in the development of CAUTI, NUTI, antibiotic resistance, and catheter encrustation leading to blockage. With an understanding of biofilms, nurses can better understand how CAUTIs and catheter encrustations develop.

     Biofilms develop on urinary catheters when bacteria adhere to and multiply on catheter surfaces, forming mushroom-like colonies protected in a polysaccharide matrix.33 Once these bacteria attach, they multiply quickly, swarm over the inner-luminal and extra-luminal surfaces of the catheter, and advance in a retrograde fashion.3 Bacteria frequently come from the hands of healthcare workers, cross contamination from other patients, or from the patient’s own colonic or perineal flora.19 Biofilms are of particular concern in the medical community because they can develop on any indwelling device, including intravenous catheters, needleless connectors, endotracheal tubes, pacemakers, mechanical heart valves, and urinary catheters, and they are highly resistant to traditional antimicrobial treatment.34 The longer a urinary catheter is left in place, the higher the risk of biofilm formation leading to infection. For this reason, urinary catheters should be removed as soon as possible.3,8 Studies have shown that all traditional catheter materials are subject to biofilm development.35

     Risk factors for CAUTI. Risk factors for catheter-related infection include prolonged catheterization (>6 days), female gender, inserting the catheter outside the operating room, diabetes, malnutrition, renal insufficiency, monitoring of urine output, and positioning the drainage tubing below the drainage bag outlet.3 Other contributing factors are contamination during insertion, fecal incontinence (contamination by Escherichia coli in women), and interruption of the closed-catheter system.3 The most important, potentially modifiable, risk factor is prolonged catheterization (>6 days) — by day 30 of catheterization, essentially all patients are infected.3

     Identification and treatment of CAUTI. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection is the most frequently reported complication of urinary catheterization.

References: 

1. Dobson C, Naidu S, Johnson M. Nurses’ perceptions of urinary catheter selection and management. Urology Nursing. 1996;16:140–144.
2. Evans E. Indwelling catheter care: dispelling the misconceptions. Geriatric Nursing. 1999;20(2):85–89.
3. Maki DG, Tambyah PA. Engineering out the risk of infection with urinary catheters. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(2)342–347.
4. Wilde M. Meanings and practical knowledge of people with long-term urinary catheters. Journal of Wound Ostomy Continence Nursing. 2003;30(1):33–39.
5. Saint S, Veenstra DL, Sullivan SD, et al. The potential clinical and economic benefits of silver alloy urinary catheters in preventing urinary tract infection. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(17):2670–2675.
6. Cravens DD, Zweig S. Urinary catheter management. Am Fam Physician. 2000;61(2):369–376.
7. Fanti JA, Newman DK, Colling J, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines, No. 2, 1996 Update: Urinary Incontinence in Adults. Acute and Chronic Management. Rockville, Md. US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Services Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; March 1996. AHCPR Publication No.96-0682.
8. Wong ES, Hooten TM. Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 1981;Feb. [serial online]. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/GUIDE/uritract.htmnece. Accessed September 8, 2003.
9. Addison R, Mould C. Risk assessment in suprapubic catheterization. Nursing Standard. 2002;14(36):43–46.
10. Robinson J. Deflation of a foley catheter balloon. Nursing Standard. 2003;17(27):33–38.
11. Mitsui T, Minami K, Furuno T, et al. Is suprapubic cystostomy an optimal urinary management in high quadriplegics? A comparative study of suprapubic cystostomy and clean intermittent catheterization. Eur Urol. 2000; 38(4):434–438.
12. Nomura S. Ishido T, Teranishi J, Makiyama K. Long-term analysis of supra-pubic cyctostomy drainage in patients with neurogenic bladders. Urologia Internationalis. 2000;65(4):185–189.
13. Parkin J, Scanlan J, Woolley M, et al. Urinary catheter “deflation cuff” formation: clinical audit and quantitative in vitro analysis. British Journal of Urology. 2002;90(7):666–671.
14. Liss GM, Sussman GL. Latex sensitization: occupational versus general prevalence rates. Am J Ind Med. 1999;35(2):196–200.
15. Vila L, Sanchez G, Ano M, et al. Risk factors for latex sensitization among health care workers. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1999;9(6):356–360.
16. Department of Health and Human Services. FDA. Federal Register: Natural Rubber-Containing Medical Devices; User Labeling, Federal Register 1997;62(189):51021–51030.
17. Tullock AGS. Ferguson AF. Catheter-induced urethritis: a comparison between latex and silicone catheters in a prospective clinical trial. British Journal of Urology. 1985;57(3):325–328.
18. Studder UE, Bishop MC, Zingg EJ. How to fill silicone catheter balloons. Urology. 1983;22(3):300–302.
19. Salgado CD, Karchmer TB, Farr BM. Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections, 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003;297–311.
20. Robinson J. Urethral catheter selection. Nursing Standard. 2001;15(25):39–42.
21. Newman DK. Managing indwelling urethral catheters. Ostomy/Wound Management. 1998;44(12):26–35.
22. Chinnes L, Dillion A, Fauerbach L. Home Care Handbook of Infection Control 2002. Washington, DC: Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC);2002.
23. Gerard L, Sueppel C. Lubrication technique for male catheterization. Urology Nursing. 1997;17(4):156–158.
24. Cancio LC, Sabanegh ES JR, Thompson IM. Managing the foley catheter. Am Fam Physician. 1993;48(5):829–836.
25. Wilde M. Long-term indwelling urinary catheter care:conceptualizing the research base. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25(6):1252–1261.
26. Hanchett M. Techniques for stabilizing urinary catheters. Am J Nurs. 2002;102(3):44–48.
27. Getliffe K. Managing recurrent urinary catheter blockage: problems, promises and practicalities. Wound Ostomy Continence. 2003;30(3):146–151.
28. Dille C, Kirchhoff K. Increasing the wearing time of vinyl urinary drainage bags with bleach. Rehabilitation Nursing. 1993;18(5):292–295.
29. Rutala WA, Barbee SL, Aquiar NC, et al. Antimicrobial activity of home disinfectants and natural products against potential human pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21(1):33–38.
30. Daifuku R. Stann WE. Association of rectal urethral colonization with urinary tract infection in patients with indwelling catheters. JAMA. 1984;252(15)2028–20230.
31. Warren JW. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2001;17(4):299–303.
32. Maki DG, Knasinski V, Halvorson K, Tambyah PA. Risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infection: a prospective study showing the minimal effect of catheter care violations on the risk of CAUTI (abstract). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21:165.
33. Stickler DJ. Bacterial biofilms and encrustations of urethral catheters. Biofouling. 1996;94:293–305.
34. Donlan RM. Biofilms and device-associated infections. Emerg Infect Dis CDC. 2001;(7)2:277–281.
35. Kunin CM, Chin QF, Chambers S. Formation of encrustations on indwelling urinary catheters in the elderly: a comparison of different types of catheter materials in “blocker” and “nonblocker”. J Urol. 1987;138(4):899–902.
36. Tambyah PA, Maki DG. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection is rarely symptomatic; a prospective study of 1,497 catheterized patients. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(5):678–682.
37. Gammack JK. Use and management of chronic urinary catheters in long-term care: much controversy, little consensus. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2002;3(3):162–168.
38. McGeer A, Campbell B, Emori TG, et al. Definitions of infection for surveillance in long-term care facilities. Am J Infect Control. 1991;19(1):1–7.
39. Switters DM. Assessing leakage from around the urethral catheter. Urological Nursing. 1989;9(3):8–10.
40. Bhatia NN, Bergman A. Cystometry: unstable bladder and urinary tract infection. Brit J Urol. 1986;58(2):134–137.
41. Ziemann LK, Lastauskas NM, Ambrosini G. Incidence of leakage from indwelling urinary catheters in home-bound patient. Home Healthcare Nurse. 1984;2(5):22–26.
42. Stickler DJ. Hewitt P. Activity of antiseptics against biofilms of mixed bacterial species growing on silicone surfaces. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991;10:416–421.
43. Morris NS, Stickler DJ. Does drinking cranberry juice produce urine inhibitory to the development of crystalline, catheter-blocking Proteus mirabilis biofilms? BJU Int. 2001;88(3):192–197.









































image description image description 




  


  

  


  Anonymoussays:
  January 10.2010 at 23:59 pm
  
Hi there, thanks for this wonderful article. have gotten quite a bit of insight on evidence-based practice on the care of IDC.

  

  Reply to this comment »





  

  


  Anonymoussays:
  October 2.2009 at 19:47 pm
  
Excellent article.  I work in a facility where they are filling 30 ml balloons with 10 ml and wondering constantly why they are leaking .  Foleys are being changed on a continual basis because of lack of knowledge.  All we have is 14 & 16 fr 30- ml .  Of course orders are always for 14 , 16  10 ml.  And the story goes on and on . i printed this article and I am going to leave in the DON's desk.  Directions are right on the foleys by the way , " fill 30 ml only with 30 ml "  Yet they still fill the balloons with 10 ml , and the foleys fall out.  I left a note to order 14 and 16 fr 5 ml .  Hopefully this article will do some good

  

  Reply to this comment »





  
Post new comment


  



 
 



  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use  to create page breaks.
More information about formatting options





Image CAPTCHA

 
 
 
Enter the characters shown in the image.