4.6 Article

Dually incontinent nursing home residents: Clinical characteristics and treatment differences

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Volume 48, Issue 6, Pages 673-676

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb04727.x

Keywords

incontinence; nursing homes; aged; dementia; health care utilization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have described urinary and fecal incontinence in nursing homes and their separate effects on healthcare utilization. However, little is known about those who are incontinent of both. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTINGS: Twenty sires in three states. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 413 nursing home residents were categorized as having neither fecal nor urinary incontinence (C, n = 114), urinary incontinence only (UI, n = 53), fecal incontinence only (FI, n = 9), or were dually incontinent (DI, n = 237). MEASUREMENTS: Charts were abstracted for sociodemographic information and health status information as well as utilization for the year before the date of abstraction. We then compared these characteristics across groups using ANOVA with pairwise comparisons and multiply adjusted regression. RESULTS:Almost all patients with DI were cognitively and mobility impaired. However, there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age and number of diagnoses. A diagnosis of stroke was also more common among those with DI compared with C. When examining healthcare utilization in multiply adjusted regression, dually incontinent residents received significantly fewer days of hospital care than those with UI. CONCLUSIONS: Dual incontinence in NH residents is likely to have an important functional component. These residents seem to be treated less aggressively with respect to hospitalization compared with those with UI alone. The reasons for these differences need to be explored further.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available