4.7 Article

National audit of continence care for older people: management of faecal incontinence

Journal

AGE AND AGEING
Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 268-273

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afm004

Keywords

faecal incontinence; older people; audit; clinical effectiveness; elderly

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: faecal incontinence in older people is associated with considerable morbidity but is amenable to successful management. Quality standards in this area were previously subject to a pilot audit in primary, secondary care and care homes to allow providers to compare the care delivered by their service to others and to monitor the development of integrated continence services as set out in the National Service Framework for Older People. This study reports the results of the national audit. Results: data were returned by 141 primary care sites, 159 secondary care trusts (involving 198 hospitals) and 29 care homes. Data on the care of 3,059 patients/residents with bowel problems were analysed. Fifty-eight per cent of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), 48% of hospitals and 74% of care homes reported that integrated continence services existed in their areas. Whilst basic provision of care appeared to be in place, the audit identified deficiencies in the organisation of services and in the assessment and management of faecal incontinence. Conclusion: the results of this audit indicate that the requirement for integrated continence services contained within the National Service Framework for Older People has not yet been met. Basic assessment and care by the professionals directly looking after older persons is often lacking. There is an urgent need to re-establish the fundamentals of continence care into the daily practice of medical and nursing staff, and undoubtedly, action needs to be taken with regard to the establishment of truly integrated, quality services in this neglected area of practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available