Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:59:44.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergency Department Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection Prevention: Multisite Qualitative Study of Perceived Risks and Implemented Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2015

Eileen J. Carter ,
Daniel J. Pallin ,
Leslie Mandel ,
Corine Sinnette  and
Jeremiah D. Schuur
Eileen J. Carter*
Affiliation:
Columbia University School of Nursing, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York
Daniel J. Pallin
Affiliation:
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Leslie Mandel
Affiliation:
Regis College, School of Nursing and Health Sciences, Weston, Massachusetts
Corine Sinnette
Affiliation:
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
Jeremiah D. Schuur
Affiliation:
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
*
Address correspondence to Eileen J. Carter, PhD, RN, Columbia University School of Nursing, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, 617 West 168th Street, Suite 308, New York, NY 10032 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Existing knowledge of emergency department (ED) catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention is limited. We aimed to describe the motivations, perceived risks for CAUTI acquisition, and strategies used to address CAUTI risk among EDs that had existing CAUTI prevention programs.

METHODS

In this qualitative comparative case study, we enrolled early-adopting EDs, that is, those using criteria for urinary catheter placement and tracking the frequency of catheters placed in the ED. At 6 diverse facilities, we conducted 52 semistructured interviews and 9 focus groups with hospital and ED participants.

RESULTS

All ED CAUTI programs originated from a hospitalwide focus on CAUTI prevention. Staff were motivated to address CAUTI because they believed program compliance improved patient care. ED CAUTI prevention was perceived to differ from CAUTI prevention in the inpatient setting. To identify areas of ED CAUTI prevention focus, programs examined ED workflow and identified 4 CAUTI risks: (1) inappropriate reasons for urinary catheter placement; (2) physicians’ limited involvement in placement decisions; (3) patterns of urinary catheter overuse; and (4) poor insertion technique. Programs redesigned workflow to address risks by (1) requiring staff to specify the medical reason for catheter at the point of order entry and placement; (2) making physicians responsible for determining catheter use; (3) using catheter alternatives to address patterns of overuse; and (4) modifying urinary catheter insertion practices to ensure proper placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Early-adopting EDs redesigned workflow to minimize catheter use and ensure proper insertion technique. Assessment of ED workflow is necessary to identify and modify local practices that may increase CAUTI risk.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37(2):156–162

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 37 , Supplement 2 , February 2016 , pp. 156 - 162
Copyright
© 2015 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

PREVIOUS PRESENTATION. These study findings were presented at IDWeek 2014 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 8–12, 2014.

References

REFERENCES

1. Umscheid, C, Mitchell, MD, Doshi, J, Agarwal, R, Williams, K, Brennan, P. Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:101–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. 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;35:449–455.Google Scholar
3. Schuur, JD, Venkatesh, AK. The growing role of emergency departments in hospital admissions. N Engl J Med 2012;367:391–393.Google Scholar
4. Schuur, JD, Chambers, JG, Hou, PC. Urinary catheter use and appropriateness in U.S. emergency departments, 1995–2010. Acad Emerg Med 2014;21:292–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Fakih, MG, Shemes, SP, Pena, ME, et al. Urinary catheters in the emergency department: very elderly women are at high risk for unnecessary utilization. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:683–688.Google Scholar
6. Fakih, MG, Heavens, M, Grotemeyer, J, Szpunar, SM, Groves, C, Hendrich, A. Avoiding potential harm by improving appropriateness of urinary catheter use in 18 emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med 2014;63:761–768 e1.Google Scholar
7. Tong, A, Sainsbury, P, Craig, J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–357.Google Scholar
8. Yin, RK. Case Study Research Design and Methods, 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014.Google Scholar
9. Dyc, NG, Pena, ME, Shemes, SP, Rey, JE, Szpunar, SM, Fakih, MG. The effect of resident peer-to-peer education on compliance with urinary catheter placement indications in the emergency department. Postgrad Med J 2011;87:814–818.Google Scholar
10. Fakih, MG, Pena, ME, Shemes, S, et al. Effect of establishing guidelines on appropriate urinary catheter placement. Acad Emerg Med 2010;17:337–340.Google Scholar
11. Patrizzi, K, Fasnacht, A, Manno, M. A collaborative, nurse-driven initiative to reduce hospital-acquired urinary tract infections. J Emerg Nurs 2009;35:536–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Scott, RA, Oman, KS, Makic, MB, et al. Reducing indwelling urinary catheter use in the emergency department: a successful quality-improvement initiative. J Emerg Nurs 2014;40:237–244; quiz 93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Liang, SY, Theodoro, DL, Schuur, JD, Marschall, J. Infection prevention in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2014;64:299–313.Google Scholar
14. ED Infection Prevention Practices Survey. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School website. http://edip.bwh.harvard.edu/projects/ed-infection-prevention-practices-survey/. Published 2012. Accessed July 14, 2014.Google Scholar
15. Hsieh, HF, Shannon, SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15:1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Carter, EJ, Pouch, SM, Larson, EL. Common infection prevention practices in the emergency department: a literature review. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:957–962.Google Scholar
17. Fact sheets: CMS final rule to improve quality of care during hospital inpatient stays. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. http://www.cms.gov/newsroom/mediareleasedatabase/fact-sheets/2013-fact-sheets-items/2013-08-02-3.html. Published 2013. Accessed July 14, 2014.Google Scholar
18. LeMaster, CH, Hoffart, N, Chafe, T, Benzer, T, Schuur, JD. Implementing the central venous catheter infection prevention bundle in the emergency department: experiences among early adopters. Ann Emerg Med 2014;63:340–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Jamtvedt, G, Young, JM, Kristoffersen, DT, O’Brien, MA, Oxman, AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Revs 2006:CD000259.Google ScholarPubMed
20. Geography: Urban and Rural Classification. U.S. Census Bureau website. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html. Published 2015. Accessed September 10, 2015.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Carter supplementary material S1

Appendix

Download Carter supplementary material S1(File)
File 19.9 KB