4.6 Article

Use of the agency for health care policy and research urinary incontinence guideline in nursing homes

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 51, 期 12, 页码 1779-1786

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51564.x

关键词

urinary incontinence; nursing homes; guideline implementation

资金

  1. AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY [R01HS008491] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. AHRQ HHS [R01 HS08491] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to assess the use of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (now called the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) Urinary Incontinence (UI) Guideline (1996) in nursing homes (NHs) using retrospective chart review and nursing assistant screening interviews. The study was conducted in a nonrandom sample of 52 NHs in upstate New York. Two hundred residents developing new UI or newly admitted with UI on the dayshift and who met criteria for evaluation and treatment/management were evaluated in the 12 weeks after onset of or admission with UI. Fifteen percent of newly admitted residents needed evaluation. Of residents already in NHs, 2.3 per 100 beds developed new UI over the 12 weeks. Aspects of UI evaluation rarely done were rectal examination (15%), digital examination of prostate (15%), and pelvic examination (2%). Sixty-eight percent had a culture/sensitivity, 56% a urinalysis, and 6% a postvoid residual. Eighty-one percent had a reversible cause at the time of onset, but only 34% had all addressed. Few (2%) needed urologist evaluation. Treatment was rare (3%), but management using toileting and absorbent products were common. Only 6% achieved resolution of UI. These results suggest that assessment and treatment of UI is manageable (a total of 4.2 new cases per 100 beds per 12 weeks) but quality is not adequate. On average, only 20% of the standards applicable were met, due primarily to lack of awareness of new UI and lack of familiarity with the guideline. Thus, improvements are needed. Recommendations for guideline revision are made.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据