0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.196.196.72. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Original Investigation |

Reducing Inappropriate Urinary Catheter Use:  A Statewide Effort FREE

Mohamad G. Fakih, MD, MPH; Sam R. Watson, MSA, MT; M. Todd Greene, PhD, MPH; Edward H. Kennedy, MS; Russell N. Olmsted, MPH; Sarah L. Krein, PhD, RN; Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Disease, St John Hospital and Medical Center (Dr Fakih) and Department of Internal Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine (Dr Fakih), Detroit Michigan; Michigan Health and Hospital Association (MHA), MHA Keystone Center for Patient Safety and Quality, Lansing (Mr Watson); Department of Internal Medicine, Patient Safety Enhancement Program, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor (Drs Greene, Krein, and Saint and Mr Kennedy); Hospital Outcomes Program of Excellence (Drs Krein and Saint), Center for Clinical Management Research, Department of Veterans Affairs (Mr Kennedy and Drs Krein and Saint), Ann Arbor Health Care System, Ann Arbor; and Infection Prevention and Control Services, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System, Ann Arbor (Mr Olmsted).


Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(3):255-260. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.627.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background Indwelling urinary catheters may lead to both infectious and noninfectious complications and are often used in the hospital setting without an appropriate indication. The objective of this study was to evaluate the results of a statewide quality improvement effort to reduce inappropriate urinary catheter use.

Methods Retrospective analysis of data collected between 2007 and 2010 as part of a statewide collaborative initiative before, during, and after an educational intervention promoting adherence to appropriate urinary catheter indications. The data were collected from 163 inpatient units in 71 participating Michigan hospitals. The intervention consisted of educating clinicians about the appropriate indications for urinary catheter use and promoting the daily assessment of urinary catheter necessity during daily nursing rounds. The main outcome measures were change in prevalence of urinary catheter use and adherence to appropriate indications. We used flexible generalized estimating equation (GEE) and multilevel methods to estimate rates over time while accounting for the clustering of patients within hospital units.

Results The urinary catheter use rate decreased from 18.1% (95% CI, 16.8%-19.6%) at baseline to 13.8% (95% CI, 12.9%-14.8%) at end of year 2 (P < .001). The proportion of catheterized patients with appropriate indications increased from 44.3% (95% CI, 40.3%-48.4%) to 57.6% (95% CI, 51.7%-63.4%) by the end of year 2 (P = .005).

Conclusions A statewide effort to reduce inappropriate urinary catheter use was associated with a significant reduction in catheter use and improved compliance with appropriate use. The effect of the intervention was sustained for at least 2 years.

Figures in this Article

Urinary tract infections account for a large portion of all hospital-acquired infections,1 with catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) representing the majority of these cases.2 CAUTI has been classified as a “reasonably preventable” hospital-acquired condition by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS); CMS no longer reimburses hospitals for this condition.3 Among the most effective approaches for reducing CAUTI is using a urinary catheter only when an appropriate indication is present.4 Assessing whether there is an appropriate indication for catheter use should be part of the initial decision for placement as well as part of an ongoing process for determining the continuing need for a catheter throughout the hospital stay.4

Prior studies reveal that interventions promoting awareness of the presence of an indwelling catheter and timely removal have been associated with a reduction in inappropriate urinary catheter use and CAUTI.5 Most studies, however, have evaluated interventions at a single site610; the effectiveness of a larger-scale intervention to promote appropriate catheter use has yet to be determined. Moreover, the extent to which improvements might be sustained for substantial periods remains unclear. In 2007, the Michigan Health and Hospital Association (MHA) Keystone Center implemented a statewide initiative to reduce the unnecessary use of urinary catheters in Michigan hospitals.11 The initiative was based on an intervention developed by a single Michigan hospital in which nurse-led multidisciplinary rounds were used to prompt removal of unnecessary catheters, leading to a 45% reduction in inappropriate catheter use.8 The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the effect of the MHA Keystone Center initiative on urinary catheter use among participating Michigan hospitals and to assess multiyear sustainability.

We conducted a retrospective review of the MHA data collected as part of the CAUTI prevention initiative over a period of over 3 years (2007-2010). All Michigan hospitals and their respective inpatient units (primarily medical-surgical, nonintensive care units) were eligible for participation and were encouraged to enroll. For each participating hospital, we obtained deidentified data on catheter use and the reason for use from the Web-based MHA data system “Care Counts,” which was also used by hospitals to follow up on their progress over time.

Before starting the intervention, key hospital leaders were informed of the study and asked for their support. Hospitals were encouraged to disseminate the information regarding the intervention to physicians and nurses. Hospitals were asked to form a team to implement the process. The team included a nursing champion (educates the patient-care nurses and triggers the evaluation for urinary catheter necessity on the participating unit), a physician champion (obtains physician support for the initiative), an infection preventionist (addresses the infectious complications related to the urinary catheter), and other stakeholders (quality improvement, case managers, patient care assistants, nurse educators). Hospitals formed their teams based on their resources.

Multiple webinars were given to the participating teams. The initial webinar addressed the infectious and noninfectious risks of urinary catheter use, the appropriate indications for urinary catheter use, and common situations where the catheter is used inappropriately. It also addressed the proper insertion technique and maintenance of the urinary catheter. The main message was to evaluate daily the need for the urinary catheter. The second webinar included a detailed description of how to implement the process at each facility. We suggested that hospitals consider involving units with high urinary catheter use and increased unnecessary use; however, each hospital made the decision to choose the unit involved.

Initially, each unit involved collected baseline data on urinary catheter use and appropriateness (week 1); this was followed by the education of nurses on evaluating patients for urinary catheter presence and need during nursing or multidisciplinary, unit-based rounds (weeks 2-3). Nurses were encouraged to evaluate the presence and need for the catheter during nursing rounds and contact the physician if no appropriate indication was present. Following the intensive intervention periods, catheter use was tracked and evaluated over time (at 8-week and then 12-week intervals), and appropriate practices were reinforced. A health care worker from each facility collected all the data prospectively, including the number of patients on the unit, presence of the catheter, and the reason for use. Appropriate indications for catheter use were defined based on the 1983 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations12 (issued prior to the new CDC Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee [HICPAC] guidelines4). The appropriate indications included urinary tract obstruction, neurogenic bladder dysfunction and urinary retention, and urologic studies or surgery on contiguous structures. In addition, urinary catheter use was considered appropriately indicated for patients with urinary incontinence and stage III or IV sacral pressure ulcers and for end-of-life care.

Continued feedback was given to the units on their performance (ie, any changes in urinary catheter use and compliance with the appropriate indications). Teams were able to calculate through MHA “Care Counts” their total and appropriate urinary catheter use. Appropriate catheter-days were calculated by summing all catheter-days used based on the different appropriate indications. Support to hospitals was provided by the use of multiple coaching calls to existing teams, and additional webinars were presented to newly participating hospitals. All webinars were open to all the teams. Finally, a “Bladder Bundle”11 manual was distributed to all participating hospitals; it included a step-by-step description of the process, educational materials to staff (including posters and pocket cards), examples of policies, and information about barriers and facilitators.

We used generalized estimating equation (GEE) methods13 to estimate population average rates of catheter use (urinary catheter-days/patient-days) and appropriate catheterization (appropriate catheter-days/catheter-days), and multilevel models with empirical Bayes prediction14 to explore unit-specific rates. Population average rates captured trends across rather than within hospital units, and could be viewed as a weighted average of unit-specific rates. Both GEE and multilevel approaches accounted for clustering of patients within units, and the empirical Bayes method accounted for differential sample sizes across units by shrinking less reliable unit-specific estimates toward the overall mean.

To allow for nonlinearity across time, we modeled population average rates as a function of continuous time (from baseline) using natural cubic splines with 5 knots. The clustered robust (or “sandwich”) variance estimator was used to account for correlation among patients within hospital units.15 Multilevel models allowed intercepts and slopes to vary randomly across units and assumed a linear relationship between rates and log-transformed time (log transformation was deemed to be sufficient via likelihood ratio tests for more complicated spline structure). Odds ratios for specific units comparing week 20 to baseline were calculated using multilevel model empirical Bayes predictions; for this analysis we used only those units that collected data for up to 20 weeks.

Both GEE and multilevel analyses were done at the patient level rather than at the unit level, and models did not include covariates (besides time from baseline), since covariate data were not collected, and interest centered on urinary catheter prevalence. Units that failed to collect data for any of the first 3 weeks (ie, during baseline or intervention) were excluded from analysis. The St John Hospital and Medical Center institutional review board approved the study prior to all data analysis.

A total of 194 162 patient-days of data were collected across 163 units within 71 acute-care hospitals (55% of 130 eligible Michigan hospitals). Urinary catheters were used for a total of 29 990 patient-days (15.4%) across the study period. Most units (127 of 163 or 77.9%) collected data for at least 80% of the maximum possible follow-up time, and most collected data for at least 90% of the maximum (105 of 163 or 64.4%) (Figure 1); in other words, most missing data was the result of administrative censoring rather than potentially biasing dropout.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Duration of data collection for individual units by calendar time (A) and follow-up time (B).

The average urinary catheter use rate decreased from 18.1% (95% CI, 16.8%-19.6%) at baseline to 17.2% (95% CI, 16.0%-18.4%) (P = .01) at week 3 (the second week of the intervention), representing a statistically significant 6% decrease in the odds of catheter use. The rate decreased to 15.9% (95% CI, 14.7%-17.2%) (P < .001) by week 8, and to 14.8% (95% CI, 13.6%-16.0%) (P < .001) by week 20 (Table 1 and Figure 2). The proportion of appropriately indicated catheter-days increased from 44.3% (95% CI, 40.3%-48.4%) at baseline to 46.8% (95% CI, 42.6%-51.0%) (P < .001) at week 3 (the second week of the intervention), representing an 11% increase in the odds of appropriately indicated catheter use. By weeks 8 and 20, the proportion had increased to 50.4% (95% CI, 45.4%-55.4%) (P < .001) and 53.5% (95% CI, 48.7%-58.4%) (P < .001), respectively (Table 1 and Figure 2). Two years after baseline, the catheter use rate was 13.8% (95% CI, 12.9%-14.8%) (P < .001), and appropriate catheterization increased to 57.6% (95% CI, 51.7%-63.4%) (P = .005). However, estimates after week 104 are relatively unreliable owing to limited data collection (Table 1, Figures 1 and 2). Table 2 lists the crude distribution of the indications (both appropriate and inappropriate) for urinary catheter use at weeks 1, 3, 8, and 20.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Rates of catheter use (A) and appropriate catheterization (B) across time. The tick marks at the x-axes indicate times at which data were collected. The darkness of the tick marks reflects the number of units contributing data (darker marks indicating more units and lighter marks, fewer units); black represents all units, and white represents no units.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Rates and Confidence Intervals for Catheter Use and Appropriate Catheterization
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Reasons for Catheter Use Across Time (Raw Percentages)

From baseline to week 20 (and for units with data up to week 20), the top decile of units in terms of decreased odds of catheter use had estimated odds ratios (ORs) ranging between 0.48 and 0.25, while the top decile of units in terms of increased odds of appropriate catheter use (not necessarily the same as the previous decile) had estimated ORs ranging between 5.06 and 10.92. Such performance may represent best-case scenarios for response to the interventions. Conversely, the bottom decile of units had ORs for increases in catheter use ranging between 1.22 and 1.88 and ORs for decreases in appropriate catheterization ranging between 0.36 and 0.04 during this period. The median units, however, had ORs of 0.80 for catheter use and 1.71 for appropriate catheterization. This decrease in use and increase in appropriate catheterization is aligned with the results seen in the GEE analysis (where the corresponding ORs were 0.79 and 1.45, respectively). Figure 3 shows the ORs for catheter use and appropriate catheterization for units with data for both quantities up until at least week 20. Figure 3 indicates that high-performing units with respect to catheter use (ie, those with low ORs) were not necessarily high-performing units with respect to appropriate catheterization (ie, those with high ORs); however, most units (56.6%) that continued to collect data until week 20 saw both a decrease in catheter use and an increase in appropriate catheterization.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3. The relationship between catheter use and appropriate catheterization.

We examined the results of a statewide quality improvement initiative among a large cohort of hospitals that implemented an intervention to evaluate the presence and appropriate use of urinary catheters. Overall, the intervention led to a significant reduction in use and an improvement in the appropriateness of use. Our results largely parallel the improvement seen when the intervention was piloted in a single hospital.8 The improvement in urinary catheter use was apparent within the first 2 weeks of the intervention, and the progressive improvement in use continued throughout the study period from a baseline rate of 18.1% to 13.8% at year 2. This translates to an overall 28% reduction in the odds of catheter use. Our results show that Michigan hospitals were able to reduce use significantly to levels comparable to the 25th percentile reported by the National Healthcare Safety Network for urinary catheter use in medical-surgical inpatient wards.16

Avoiding initial urinary catheter placement and reducing the duration of use once placed are associated with fewer infectious complications. Previous studies have shown that urinary catheter reminders and stop orders leading to a reduction in use were associated with a significant reduction in CAUTI.5 In addition to reducing the infection risk, promoting the appropriate use of the catheter may lead to fewer noninfectious complications, such as urethral injury.17 Moreover, patients may experience less discomfort and be free of the restraints associated with catheter use.18,19

The appropriate use of urinary catheters also improved significantly over the course of the study. By year 2, the odds of appropriate placement among those with urinary catheters increased by 71% compared with baseline. Despite this significant improvement, appropriate use (based on the 1983 CDC guidelines12) reached only 57.6% at year 2. While this suggests that there may be further opportunity for improvement, the 1983 CDC guidelines12 and the newer HICPAC guidelines4 are consensus based and may not be inclusive of all conditions where the catheter may be required.

We observed between-unit variation in response to the intervention. Possible differences between high- and low-performing hospitals might include varying levels of commitment from each institution to make this effort a high priority or differential involvement of champions to support the effort.20 External forces influencing the decision to fully adopt safe processes may also play an important role, whether related to public reporting or financial incentives.20 Moreover, organizations have different contextual characteristics: hospitals with a strong emotional commitment to patient care and an active clinical leadership provide a milieu favorable to quality improvement activities.21 In contrast, while some hospitals lacking emotional commitment to patient care or with weak leadership support may respond favorably to externally facilitated initiatives, such as the MHA Keystone Center initiative, others may face substantial barriers that inhibit implementing evidence-based practices in their institution.21

Our findings should be interpreted in the context of the following limitations. First, not all hospitals collected data throughout the entire study period, mostly due to staggered start times. Although we did observe continued decreases in catheter use and increases in appropriately indicated catheters in those placed throughout the 3-year study period, fewer than half of the units collected data for more than 2 years. If low-performing hospitals were more likely to discontinue data collection or more likely to start the study later, our results could be misleading. Still, most hospital units collected data through 20 to 30 weeks after intervention, so immediate effects of the intervention are unlikely to be compromised by such selection bias. Furthermore, discontinued data collection largely resulted from the ending of the study (administrative censoring) rather than unit dropout.

Second, we did not have data for a control group of hospitals that did not receive the intervention; thus, the possibility exists that some portion of the effects would have occurred even without the intervention. For example, some hospitals may have established programs to reduce the risk for CAUTI in response to the CMS nonreimbursement. However, owing to the complexity of coding cases of hospital-acquired CAUTI, errors in coding may underestimate the number and lessen the financial impact on hospitals.22

In addition, our results may not be universally generalizable because hospitals self-selected into the study, and units that were enrolled in the study were chosen by individual hospitals rather than selected at random. Finally, we explored only the process measures of urinary catheter use and appropriateness of urinary catheter placement because we did not have data available to investigate the influence of the intervention on infectious or noninfectious outcomes.

Limitations notwithstanding, the MHA Keystone Center initiative was successful in reducing urinary catheter use and increasing appropriateness of catheterization in a large number of hospitals throughout the state of Michigan. Our results indicate that hospitals can improve appropriate urinary catheter use and that such efforts can be successfully implemented on a broad scale. Our findings may help motivate and guide other hospitals to undergo similar intervention programs to reduce inappropriate catheter use and collectively achieve the Department of Health and Human Services23 goal of reducing CAUTI rates by 25% by 2013.

Correspondence: Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, 300 North Ingalls, Room 7D21, Campus Box 0429, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0429 (saint@med.umich.edu).

Accepted for Publication: November 3, 2011.

Published Online: January 9, 2012. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.627

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Fakih, Watson, Greene, and Saint. Acquisition of data: Watson. Analysis and interpretation of data: Fakih, Greene, Kennedy, Olmsted, and Krein. Drafting of the manuscript: Fakih and Kennedy. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Fakih, Watson, Greene, Kennedy, Olmsted, Krein, and Saint. Statistical analysis: Greene and Kennedy. Obtained funding: Watson. Administrative, technical, and material support: Watson and Olmsted. Study supervision: Fakih and Saint.

Financial Disclosure: Drs Fakih, Krein, and Saint and Mr Watson each has a subcontract or contract to implement multistate CAUTI prevention with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality/Health Educational and Research Trust. Dr Greene is a project manager on a multistate CAUTI prevention project with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality/Health Educational and Research Trust. Mr Olmsted has provided professional consulting services to Arizant Healthcare, Bard Medical Division, ECOLAB, and Mintie. He has also served as faculty for presentations sponsored by Advanced Sterilization Products, Baxter Healthcare, BD, CareFusion, Ethicon, and several not-for-profit organizations. Mr Olmsted is also serving as an expert consultant on an extended faculty group for a multistate CAUTI prevention project with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality/Health Educational and Research Trust. Dr Saint has received travel reimbursement and numerous honoraria from hospitals, academic medical centers, specialty societies, state societies (including the MHA), and other nonprofit organizations (including the Institute for Healthcare Improvement) for speaking about health care–associated infection prevention.

Additional Contributions: We thank Andrew Hickner, MSI, for his review of the manuscript.

Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL Jr,  et al.  Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002.  Public Health Rep. 2007;122(2):160-166
PubMed
Chenoweth CE, Saint S. Urinary tract infections.  Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25(1):103-115
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saint S, Meddings JA, Calfee D, Kowalski CP, Krein SL. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection and the Medicare rule changes.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(12):877-884
PubMed
Gould CV, Umscheid CA, Agarwal RK, Kuntz G, Pegues DA.Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.  Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(4):319-326
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Meddings J, Rogers MA, Macy M, Saint S. Systematic review and meta-analysis: reminder systems to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections and urinary catheter use in hospitalized patients.  Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(5):550-560
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Apisarnthanarak A, Thongphubeth K, Sirinvaravong S,  et al.  Effectiveness of multifaceted hospitalwide quality improvement programs featuring an intervention to remove unnecessary urinary catheters at a tertiary care center in Thailand.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(7):791-798
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Crouzet J, Bertrand X, Venier AG, Badoz M, Husson C, Talon D. Control of the duration of urinary catheterization: impact on catheter-associated urinary tract infection.  J Hosp Infect. 2007;67(3):253-257
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fakih MG, Dueweke C, Meisner S,  et al.  Effect of nurse-led multidisciplinary rounds on reducing the unnecessary use of urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(9):815-819
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Huang WC, Wann SR, Lin SL,  et al.  Catheter-associated urinary tract infections in intensive care units can be reduced by prompting physicians to remove unnecessary catheters.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(11):974-978
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saint S, Kaufman SR, Thompson M, Rogers MA, Chenoweth CE. A reminder reduces urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients.  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(8):455-462
PubMed
Saint S, Olmsted RN, Fakih MG,  et al.  Translating health care-associated urinary tract infection prevention research into practice via the bladder bundle.  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009;35(9):449-455
PubMed
Wong ES. Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections.  Am J Infect Control. 1983;11(1):28-36
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes.  Biometrics. 1986;42(1):121-130
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Laird NM, Ware JH. Random-effects models for longitudinal data.  Biometrics. 1982;38(4):963-974
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Williams RL. A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data.  Biometrics. 2000;56(2):645-646
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dudeck MA, Horan TC, Peterson KD,  et al.  National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report, data summary for 2009, device-associated module.  Am J Infect Control. 2011;39(5):349-367
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Aaronson DS, Wu AK, Blaschko SD, McAninch JW, Garcia M. National incidence and impact of noninfectious urethral catheter related complications on the Surgical Care Improvement Project.  J Urol. 2011;185(5):1756-1760
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saint S, Lipsky BA, Goold SD. Indwelling urinary catheters: a one-point restraint?  Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(2):125-127
PubMed
Saint S, Lipsky BA, Baker PD, McDonald LL, Ossenkop K. Urinary catheters: what type do men and their nurses prefer?  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47(12):1453-1457
PubMed
Saint S, Kowalski CP, Forman J,  et al.  A multicenter qualitative study on preventing hospital-acquired urinary tract infection in US hospitals.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(4):333-341
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Krein SL, Damschroder LJ, Kowalski CP, Forman J, Hofer TP, Saint S. The influence of organizational context on quality improvement and patient safety efforts in infection prevention: a multi-center qualitative study.  Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(9):1692-1701
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Meddings J, Saint S, McMahon LF Jr. Hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infection: documentation and coding issues may reduce financial impact of Medicare's new payment policy.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(6):627-633
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Department of Health and Human Services.  HHS Action Plan to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections. http://www.hhs.gov/ash/initiatives/hai/actionplan/index.html. Accessed July 10, 2011

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Duration of data collection for individual units by calendar time (A) and follow-up time (B).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Rates of catheter use (A) and appropriate catheterization (B) across time. The tick marks at the x-axes indicate times at which data were collected. The darkness of the tick marks reflects the number of units contributing data (darker marks indicating more units and lighter marks, fewer units); black represents all units, and white represents no units.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3. The relationship between catheter use and appropriate catheterization.

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Rates and Confidence Intervals for Catheter Use and Appropriate Catheterization
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Reasons for Catheter Use Across Time (Raw Percentages)

References

Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL Jr,  et al.  Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002.  Public Health Rep. 2007;122(2):160-166
PubMed
Chenoweth CE, Saint S. Urinary tract infections.  Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25(1):103-115
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saint S, Meddings JA, Calfee D, Kowalski CP, Krein SL. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection and the Medicare rule changes.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(12):877-884
PubMed
Gould CV, Umscheid CA, Agarwal RK, Kuntz G, Pegues DA.Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.  Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(4):319-326
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Meddings J, Rogers MA, Macy M, Saint S. Systematic review and meta-analysis: reminder systems to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections and urinary catheter use in hospitalized patients.  Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(5):550-560
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Apisarnthanarak A, Thongphubeth K, Sirinvaravong S,  et al.  Effectiveness of multifaceted hospitalwide quality improvement programs featuring an intervention to remove unnecessary urinary catheters at a tertiary care center in Thailand.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(7):791-798
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Crouzet J, Bertrand X, Venier AG, Badoz M, Husson C, Talon D. Control of the duration of urinary catheterization: impact on catheter-associated urinary tract infection.  J Hosp Infect. 2007;67(3):253-257
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fakih MG, Dueweke C, Meisner S,  et al.  Effect of nurse-led multidisciplinary rounds on reducing the unnecessary use of urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(9):815-819
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Huang WC, Wann SR, Lin SL,  et al.  Catheter-associated urinary tract infections in intensive care units can be reduced by prompting physicians to remove unnecessary catheters.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(11):974-978
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saint S, Kaufman SR, Thompson M, Rogers MA, Chenoweth CE. A reminder reduces urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients.  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(8):455-462
PubMed
Saint S, Olmsted RN, Fakih MG,  et al.  Translating health care-associated urinary tract infection prevention research into practice via the bladder bundle.  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009;35(9):449-455
PubMed
Wong ES. Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections.  Am J Infect Control. 1983;11(1):28-36
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes.  Biometrics. 1986;42(1):121-130
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Laird NM, Ware JH. Random-effects models for longitudinal data.  Biometrics. 1982;38(4):963-974
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Williams RL. A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data.  Biometrics. 2000;56(2):645-646
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dudeck MA, Horan TC, Peterson KD,  et al.  National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report, data summary for 2009, device-associated module.  Am J Infect Control. 2011;39(5):349-367
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Aaronson DS, Wu AK, Blaschko SD, McAninch JW, Garcia M. National incidence and impact of noninfectious urethral catheter related complications on the Surgical Care Improvement Project.  J Urol. 2011;185(5):1756-1760
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saint S, Lipsky BA, Goold SD. Indwelling urinary catheters: a one-point restraint?  Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(2):125-127
PubMed
Saint S, Lipsky BA, Baker PD, McDonald LL, Ossenkop K. Urinary catheters: what type do men and their nurses prefer?  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47(12):1453-1457
PubMed
Saint S, Kowalski CP, Forman J,  et al.  A multicenter qualitative study on preventing hospital-acquired urinary tract infection in US hospitals.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(4):333-341
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Krein SL, Damschroder LJ, Kowalski CP, Forman J, Hofer TP, Saint S. The influence of organizational context on quality improvement and patient safety efforts in infection prevention: a multi-center qualitative study.  Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(9):1692-1701
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Meddings J, Saint S, McMahon LF Jr. Hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infection: documentation and coding issues may reduce financial impact of Medicare's new payment policy.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(6):627-633
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Department of Health and Human Services.  HHS Action Plan to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections. http://www.hhs.gov/ash/initiatives/hai/actionplan/index.html. Accessed July 10, 2011

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 12

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles