A two phased study on health care professionals' perceptions of single or multi-use of intermittent catheters

Single use versus reusable catheters in intermittent catheterisation for treatment of urinary retention: a protocol for a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial (COMPaRE)

INTRODUCTION

Chronic urinary retention is a common lower urinary tract disorder, mostly neurogenic or idiopathic in origin. The preferred treatment is clean intermittent urinary self-catheterisation (CISC) four to six times a day. In most European countries, virtually all patients use single use catheters, which is in contrast to several countries where the use of reusable catheters is more common. The available literature on the use of reusable catheters is conflicting and until now, no randomised controlled trial with sufficient power has been performed to investigate if reusable catheters for CISC is as safe as single use catheters.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We described this protocol for a prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to investigate if the use of reusable catheters is as safe as single use catheters for CISC patients, measured by symptomatic urinary tract infections (sUTIs). Secondary objectives are adverse events due to a sUTI, urethral damage, stone formation, quality of life and patient satisfaction. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. 456 Participants will be randomised into two groups stratified for age, gender, menopausal status and (non-)neurogenic underlying disorder. The intervention group will replace the reusable catheter set every 2 weeks for a new set and replace the cleaning solution every 24 hours. The control group continues to use its own catheters. The primary outcome (amount of sUTIs from baseline to 1 year) will be tested for non-inferiority. Categorical outcome measures will be analysed using χ² tests and quantitative outcome variables by t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests. Two-sided p values will be calculated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus MC (MEC 2019-0134) and will be performed according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist for non-inferiority trials. The results of this randomised controlled non-inferiority trial will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be publicly available.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL8296.

Management strategies for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: a qualitative study of the experiences of people with multiple sclerosis and healthcare professionals

PURPOSE

Urinary symptoms are highly prevalent among people with MS. This study aimed to explore the experiences of people with MS and HCPs in managing urinary symptoms and explore their views on using TTNS to treat urinary symptoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Audio-recorded semi-structured, interviews were employed with people with MS and HCPs. All transcribed interviews were exported to NVivo software (Version 12) and analyzed using a reflexive approach to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified; The wide-ranging negative impacts of urinary symptoms ("It's limited everything else"), Gaps in urinary services ("Is there somebody like that, sort of specialized in that area?"), Management strategies ("I don't go too far from the toilet in case I need to use one"), and optimism about TTNS ("Are you giving Me Hope?").

CONCLUSION

Urinary symptoms are common and very troublesome for people with MS. Despite their prevalence, many people with MS continue to suffer in silence. People with MS require skilled multidisciplinary services guided by clinical care pathways to improve service provision and to address urinary symptoms. HCP's and people with MS are open to the use of TTNS for urinary symptoms and have clear preferences for location and duration of intervention delivery.Implications for rehabilitationUrinary symptoms are very common and troublesome for people with multiple sclerosis, yet many continue to suffer in silence.People with multiple sclerosis lack knowledge about treatment options for urinary symptoms.There is an on-going need for healthcare provider education on guidelines for screening and managing urinary symptoms in people with MS and the role of specialist urinary service providers.HCP's and people with MS are open to the use of TTNS for urinary symptoms.

An effective evidence-based cleaning method for the safe reuse of intermittent urinary catheters: In vitro testing

AIMS

To determine a safe bactericidal cleaning method that does not damage urethral catheters used for intermittent catheterization. In some countries, single-use catheters are the norm; in others, the reuse of catheters is common depending on health insurance, personal preference, or individual concerns about the environment. However, no recent study of cleaning methods has been published to provide evidence for the safe reuse of catheters.

METHODS

Using advanced microbiological methods, a laboratory study of eight cleaning methods was conducted. Sections of uncoated polyvinylchloride (PVC) catheters were exposed to bacterial uropathogens in physiologically correct artificial urine media then tested with a range of heat, chemical, and mechanical cleaning methods. Analysis of culturable and viable but nonculturable (VBNC) bacteria was done and direct microscopy was used. Descriptive statistics were used to compare values.

RESULTS

Heat treatments, although effective, resulted in catheter surface breakdown and damage. Ultrasonic cleaning and vinegar showed evidence of VBNC populations indicating the methods were bacteriostatic. Detergent and water wash followed by immersion in a commercially available 0.6% sodium hypochlorite solution and 16.5% sodium chloride (diluted Milton) gave consistent bactericidal results and no visible catheter damage.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined mechanical and chemical treatment of a detergent and water wash followed by immersion in diluted Milton (the "Milton Method") provided consistent and effective cleaning of uncoated PVC catheters, showing bactericidal action for all uropathogens tested after repeated exposure. If found safe in clinical testing, this method could increase the reuse of catheters, reduce plastic waste in the environment, reduce cost, and increase patient choice.

Management strategies for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) among people with multiple sclerosis (MS): a qualitative study of the perspectives of people with MS and healthcare professionals

Background: Neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) is defined as a lower urinary tract dysfunction secondary to confirmed pathology of the nervous system. NLUTD is common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), with prevalence estimates ranging from 49% to 92%. Managing NLUTD is complex and can be comprised of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Qualitative research exploring perspectives of people with MS and healthcare professionals on living with and managing NLUTD symptoms is sparse. This study aims to explore the perspectives of people with MS and healthcare professionals on managing NLUTD symptoms. Methods: A qualitative descriptive approach will be applied in this study using audio-recorded semi structured interviews for people with MS and healthcare professionals. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) guidelines will be used to standardize the conduct and reporting of the research. People with MS will be recruited through a gatekeeper at MS Ireland. Healthcare professionals will be recruited through gatekeepers at Irish Practice Nurses Association, Continence Foundation of Ireland, Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists, and Physiotherapists Interested in MS Group. Interviews will be transcribed and exported to NVivo software package (Version 12) for analysis. Data will be collectively synthesised using thematic analysis. Conclusion: It is anticipated that exploring perspectives of people with MS and healthcare professionals on managing symptoms (including current practice) of NLUTD in MS will assist in the development of an evidence-based and stakeholder informed intervention for NLUTD in people with MS.

Reuse of intermittent catheters: a qualitative study of IC users' perspectives

OBJECTIVES

To explore the views of intermittent catheter (IC) users regarding the advantages and disadvantages of single-use or reuse of catheters.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

SETTING

Participant's own homes in Hampshire and Dorset, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of 39 IC users, aged 23-86 years, using IC for at least 3 months.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed four main themes: concerns regarding risk of urinary tract infection (UTI); cleaning, preparation and storage; social responsibility; practicalities and location. The main concern was safety, with the fear that reuse could increase risk of UTI compared with single-use sterile catheters. If shown to be safe then around half of participants thought they might consider reusing catheters. The practicalities of cleaning methods (extra products, time and storage) were considered potentially burdensome for reuse; but for single-use, ease of use and instant usability were advantages. Always having a catheter without fear of 'running out' was considered an advantage of reuse. Some participants were concerned about environmental impact (waste) and cost of single-use catheters. The potential for reuse was usually dependent on location. The analysis showed that often the disadvantages of single-use could be off-set by the advantages of reuse and vice versa, for example, the need to take many single-use catheters on holiday could be addressed by reuse, while the burden of cleaning would be obviated by single-use.

CONCLUSIONS

If shown to be safe with a practical cleaning method, some participants would find reuse an acceptable option, alongside their current single-use method. The choice to use a mixture of single-use and reuse of catheters for different activities (at home, work or holiday) could optimise the perceived advantages and disadvantages of both. The safety and acceptability of such an approach would require testing in a clinical trial.