IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i9-10p1308-1318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which factors make clean intermittent (self) catheterisation successful?

Author

Listed:
  • Hanny Cobussen‐Boekhorst
  • Joke Beekman
  • Edith van Wijlick
  • Judith Schaafstra
  • Dirk van Kuppevelt
  • John Heesakkers

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore which factors determine successful intermittent catheterisation. Background Intermittent catheterisation is a safe, effective treatment and is associated with improved quality of life, although negative issues are reported. Factors which determine adherence are largely unknown. An additional qualitative study was conducted to gain insight into patient's experience with intermittent catheterisation in everyday life. Design A prospective multicentre study was conducted between March 2012–March 2013 with one year follow‐up. Methods Patients with a variety of diagnoses referred to the outpatient clinic, ≥18 years, performed catheterisation at least once a day for ≥3 months were included. Data were obtained by patients’ specific questionnaire Visual Analog Scale of quality of life regarding voiding problems, a questionnaire about catheterisation in daily practice, King's Health questionnaire, and a short questionnaire after one year. Results Of the 129 (72 male) patients, mean age 62 (22–86) years, seven died and 63 stopped, 32/63 (50%) due to recovered bladder function. Fifty‐nine (47%) continued to perform catheterisation after one year. Forty‐seven (86%) patients reported catheterisation had become part of their life or had a positive effect on their life. A weak correlation was found between increasing age and cessation of catheterisation. Visual Analogue Scale – score on quality of life improved for the total group. The King's Health questionnaire identified in the total group that the impact of the bladder problem in daily life, limitations in daily activities and negative emotions decreased over time. Conclusion Adherence of successful intermittent catheterisation can be influenced negatively by increasing age. However, we think catheterisation should be considered as an option for older patients. We could not conform that if intermittent catheterisation was beneficial for the patient, it would positively influence adherence. Further prospective studies on adherence of intermittent catheterisation in larger groups need to be undertaken. Relevance to Clinical Practice After implementation of the national guideline in 2008, we were able to perform a multicentre study. This prospective study gives insight into patients who were undertaking intermittent catheterisation and which factors determine successful intermittent catheterisation adherence. After following the national guideline, we found no factors for additional interventions in assessment or coaching intermittent catheterisation. Post void residual volume turned out to be not a predictor for the necessity of intermittent catheterisation. A large group of patients could discontinue intermittent catheterisation during follow‐up due to bladder function recovery. Although a weak correlation was found between increasing age and ceasing of catheterisation, we think the older can benefit from intermittent catheterisation. In the first period, additional support, for example given by a district nurse, may be necessary for this group to achieve better outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanny Cobussen‐Boekhorst & Joke Beekman & Edith van Wijlick & Judith Schaafstra & Dirk van Kuppevelt & John Heesakkers, 2016. "Which factors make clean intermittent (self) catheterisation successful?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(9-10), pages 1308-1318, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:9-10:p:1308-1318
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13187
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13187?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:9-10:p:1308-1318. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.