Fecal containment in bedridden patients: economic impact of 2 commercial bowel catheter systems

BACKGROUND

Fecal contamination is a major challenge in patients in acute/critical care settings that is associated with increased cost of care and supplies and with development of pressure ulcers, incontinence dermatitis, skin and soft tissue infections, and urinary tract infections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the economic impact of fecal containment in bedridden patients using 2 different indwelling bowel catheters and to compare infection rates between groups.

METHODS

A multicenter, observational study was done at 12 US sites (7 that use catheter A, 5 that use catheter B). Patients were followed from insertion of an indwelling bowel catheter system until the patient left the acute/critical care unit or until 29 days after enrollment, whichever came first. Demographic data, frequency of bedding/dressing changes, incidence of infection, and Braden scores (risk of pressure ulcers) were recorded.

RESULTS

The study included 146 bedridden patients (76 with catheter A, 70 with catheter B) who had similar Braden scores at enrollment. The rate of bedding/dressing changes per day differed significantly between groups (1.20 for catheter A vs 1.71 for catheter B; P = .004). According to a formula that accounted for personnel resources and laundry cycle costs, catheter A cost $13.94 less per patient per day to use than did catheter B. Catheter A was less likely than was catheter B to be removed during the observational period (P = .03). Observed infection rates were low.

CONCLUSION

Catheter A may be more cost-effective than catheter B because it requires fewer unscheduled linen changes per patient day.

Clinical evaluation of a flexible fecal incontinence management system

BACKGROUND

Management of fecal incontinence is a priority in acute and critical care to reduce risk of perineal dermatitis and transmission of nosocomial infections.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of the Flexi-Seal Fecal Management System in hospitalized patients with diarrhea and incontinence.

METHODS

A prospective, single-arm clinical study with 42 patients from 7 hospitals in the United States was performed. The fecal management system could be used for up to 29 days. The first 11 patients (all from critical care) underwent endoscopic proctoscopy at baseline; 8 of these had endoscopy again after treatment. The remaining 31 patients (from critical or acute care) did not have endoscopy.

RESULTS

Rectal mucosa was healthy after use of the device in all patients who had baseline and follow-up endoscopy. Physicians and nurses reported that the system was easy to insert, remove, and dispose of; its use improved management of fecal incontinence; and it was practical, caregiver- and patient-friendly, time-efficient, and efficacious. Skin condition improved or was maintained in more than 92% of patients. Patients' reports of discomfort, pain, burning, or irritation were uncommon. Adverse events were reported for 11 patients (26%). Death (considered unrelated to study treatment) occurred in 5 patients, 2 patients had generalized skin breakdown, and 1 patient had gastrointestinal bleeding after 4 days of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The fecal management system can be used safely in hospitalized patients with diarrhea and fecal incontinence. Additional well-designed, controlled clinical trials may help to measure clinical and economic outcomes associated with the device.

Clinical Evaluation of a Flexible Fecal Incontinence Management System

Background Management of fecal incontinence is a priority in acute and critical care to reduce risk of perineal dermatitis and transmission of nosocomial infections.

Objective To evaluate the safety of the Flexi-Seal Fecal Management System in hospitalized patients with diarrhea and incontinence.

Methods A prospective, single-arm clinical study with 42 patients from 7 hospitals in the United States was performed. The fecal management system could be used for up to 29 days. The first 11 patients (all from critical care) underwent endoscopic proctoscopy at baseline; 8 of these had endoscopy again after treatment. The remaining 31 patients (from critical or acute care) did not have endoscopy.

Results Rectal mucosa was healthy after use of the device in all patients who had baseline and follow-up endoscopy. Physicians and nurses reported that the system was easy to insert, remove, and dispose of; its use improved management of fecal incontinence; and it was practical, caregiver- and patient-friendly, time-efficient, and efficacious. Skin condition improved or was maintained in more than 92% of patients. Patients’ reports of discomfort, pain, burning, or irritation were uncommon. Adverse events were reported for 11 patients (26%). Death (considered unrelated to study treatment) occurred in 5 patients, 2 patients had generalized skin breakdown, and 1 patient had gastrointestinal bleeding after 4 days of treatment.

Conclusions The fecal management system can be used safely in hospitalized patients with diarrhea and fecal incontinence. Additional well-designed, controlled clinical trials may help to measure clinical and economic outcomes associated with the device.