Clean Intermittent Self-Catheterization as a Treatment Modality for Urinary Retention: Perceptions of Urologists.
- Author:
Laurens WEYNANTS
1
;
François HERVÉ
;
Veerle DECALF
;
Candy KUMPS
;
Ronny PIETERS
;
Bart DE TROYER
;
Karel EVERAERT
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Intermittent Urethral Catheterization; Perception; Urologists; Caregivers; Urinary Catheterization
- MeSH: Caregivers; Catheters; Education; Electronic Mail; Hand; Humans; Intermittent Urethral Catheterization; Motivation; Remuneration; Tremor; Urinary Catheterization; Urinary Retention*; Visual Acuity
- From:International Neurourology Journal 2017;21(3):189-196
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: Clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) is now considered the gold standard for the management of urinary retention. In the literature, several articles on patients’ perspectives on CISC and adherence to this technique have been published. No studies have yet explored the points of view of professional caregivers, such as nurses and doctors. The aim of this study was to explore the opinions of urologists about CISC and to evaluate the need for dedicated nurses specialized in CISC through a self-administered questionnaire. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to explore the opinions of professional caregivers about self-catheterization and to evaluate the need to provide nurses with specialized education in CISC. Questionnaires were sent to 244 urologists through email. We received 101 completed questionnaires. The response rate was 41.4%. RESULTS: Hand function, the presence or absence of tremor, and visual acuity were rated as the most important determinants for proposing CISC to a patient. Twenty-five percent of the urologists reported that financial remuneration would give them a greater incentive to propose CISC. The lack of dedicated nurses was reported by half of the urologists as a factor preventing them from proposing CISC. A meaningful number of urologists thought that patients perceive CISC as invasive and unpleasant. Although most urologists would choose CISC as a treatment option for themselves, almost 1 urologist out of 5 would prefer a permanent catheter. CONCLUSIONS: This questionnaire gave valuable insights into urologists’ perceptions of CISC, and could serve as the basis for a subsequent broader international study. Further research should also focus on the opinions of nurses and other caregivers involved in incontinence management. Apart from financial remuneration, it is also clear that ensuring sufficient expertise and time for high-quality CISC care is important. This could be a potential role for dedicated nurses.
