Indwelling Catheter Removal Protocols - Research Paper Example

Evidently, with these types of statistics, UTI infections occur at a much higher rate than perhaps they need to, meaning that the prevention of UTI infections in indwelling catheter payments may be easier than previously thought in some cases. Purpose Statement The purpose of this paper is to explore the nursing implications of catheter removal protocols on in-patient units and how this may lead to a decrease in the total number of UTI infections in hospitals across the country. Nursing Implications Robinson et al (2007) suggest that because of the high number of patients with an indwelling catheter who leave with a fully-developed UTI or at least one symptom of a UTI at discharge, the proper use of indwelling catheters should be a priority for clinical staff who wish to reduce the associated rates of morbidity.

It was found that the duration of catheter insertion was also a major risk factor in the development of a UTI, and as such this should be a target for reducing the associated morbidity. Schnieder (2012) found that indwelling catheter usage is also problematic more specifically in hip fracture patients, and considerably increases the associated costs with their hospital stay, as well as the distress for the patient. In these patients especially, morbidity and mortality is extremely high and therefore further complications should be prevented.

Overall, this suggests that indwelling catheter usage is problematic on both a general and specific scale and therefore has huge implications for the practice of nursing. One of the suggestions for targeting this type of indwelling catheter usage by much of the research is to implement specific protocol which relates to the use and removal of the catheter. It was suggested by Robinson et al (2007) that three groups of patients do not appear to benefit from indwelling catheter usage; ‘those who cannot communicate their wish to void…those who are incontinent…those who are hemodynamically stable…those who have urinary retention that can be managed by other means’ (p159).

Evidently, the best way to reduce the number of UTIs associated with this type of catheter is to avoid giving them to those for whom it is unnecessary, which means that nurses should perhaps be made aware of the alternatives and the reasons why catheter usage may not be suitable for some patients. Schnieder (2012) also highlights the importance of educating nurses in the use and timely removal of indwelling catheters in the prevention of UTIs. This study suggests that using a variety of teaching methods and examinations may be the most appropriate for ensuring that the knowledge is properly received and used in a clinical context.

Overall, the results from this suggest ‘positive results’ (p17) which again highlights the importance of nurses in the use and removal of these catheter types. Nurses themselves understand the need for a ‘validated continence assessment tool’ (Dingwall & McLafferty, 2006, p35) for the evaluation and implementation of indwelling catheters and their removal. This means that the clinical staff already has an understanding of the problems associated with indwelling cathete