A prospective comparative pilot study comparing the urine collection pad with clean catch urine technique in non-toilet-trained children

Ho, IVA; Lee, CH; Fry, M

A prospective comparative pilot study comparing the urine collection pad with clean catch urine technique in non-toilet-trained children

Ho, IVA Lee, CH Fry, M

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Emergency Nursing, 2014, 22 (2), pp. 94 - 97
Issue Date:: 2014-04-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	A prospective comparative pilot study comparing the urine collection.pdf	Published Version	239.61 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Ho, IVA	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Lee, CH	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Fry, M https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1265-7096	en_US
dc.date.available	2013-08-23	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014-04-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	International Emergency Nursing, 2014, 22 (2), pp. 94 - 97	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1755-599X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/115960
dc.description.abstract	Introduction: There are many different methods for collecting urine from paediatric patients in emergency departments. Therefore, the aims of the study were to:. (i)Compare the contamination rate of urine collection pad samples (UCP) and clean catch urine (CCU).(ii)Compare the time taken for each urine collection technique.(iii)Undertake a comparative cost analysis of the two urine collection techniques.(iv)Survey parents/carers perceptions of the two urine collection techniques. Methods: The three month study was a prospective non-randomised comparative paediatric pilot study. A purposeful sample of children, requiring a urine microscopy for clinical management, presenting to one district emergency department was enrolled in the study to compare two non-invasive techniques of urine collection. Results: Thirty-three patients were enrolled and satisfactory samples were obtained from 22 patients. The heavy (mixed growth) contamination rate in the UCP group (n= 2; 9.1%) versus the CCU group (n= 1; 4.5%) was not statistically significant (p= 0.50 by Fisher's exact test). The rate of agreement (n= 20; 91%) in diagnosing or excluding urinary tract infection between the two groups was high. The median time to urine collection between the two groups (UCP method 30. min; CCU 107.5. min) was statistically significant (p<. 0.002, Mann-Whitney U test). Conclusions: This study suggests that UCPs are practicable in Australasian Emergency Departments and may lead to faster diagnosis, disposition and reduced hospital stay. © 2013.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	International Emergency Nursing	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.ienj.2013.08.004	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Nursing	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Critical Illness	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Prospective Studies	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Pilot Projects	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Infant	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Emergency Service, Hospital	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	New South Wales	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Female	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Male	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Urine Specimen Collection	en_US
dc.title	A prospective comparative pilot study comparing the urine collection pad with clean catch urine technique in non-toilet-trained children	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	22	en_US
utslib.for	1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	1110 Nursing	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Nursing
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	22	en_US

Abstract:

Introduction: There are many different methods for collecting urine from paediatric patients in emergency departments. Therefore, the aims of the study were to:. (i)Compare the contamination rate of urine collection pad samples (UCP) and clean catch urine (CCU).(ii)Compare the time taken for each urine collection technique.(iii)Undertake a comparative cost analysis of the two urine collection techniques.(iv)Survey parents/carers perceptions of the two urine collection techniques. Methods: The three month study was a prospective non-randomised comparative paediatric pilot study. A purposeful sample of children, requiring a urine microscopy for clinical management, presenting to one district emergency department was enrolled in the study to compare two non-invasive techniques of urine collection. Results: Thirty-three patients were enrolled and satisfactory samples were obtained from 22 patients. The heavy (mixed growth) contamination rate in the UCP group (n= 2; 9.1%) versus the CCU group (n= 1; 4.5%) was not statistically significant (p= 0.50 by Fisher's exact test). The rate of agreement (n= 20; 91%) in diagnosing or excluding urinary tract infection between the two groups was high. The median time to urine collection between the two groups (UCP method 30. min; CCU 107.5. min) was statistically significant (p<. 0.002, Mann-Whitney U test). Conclusions: This study suggests that UCPs are practicable in Australasian Emergency Departments and may lead to faster diagnosis, disposition and reduced hospital stay. © 2013.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/115960