ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Urinary catheter documentation in a Nigerian teaching hospital: Are we recording enough?

Chike John Okeke¹, Moses Adebisi Ogunjimi², Emmanuel Ajibola Jeje², Anselm Okwudili Obi³, Chukwuebuka Uzoma⁴

¹ Department of Urology, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Surrey, London
² Department of Surgery of the College of Medicine of the University of Lagos/Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Idi-Araba, Surulere, Lagos, Nigeria
³ Department of Surgery, Ebonyi State University/Alex-Ekwueme Federal Teaching Hospital, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria
⁴ Royal Cornwall Hospital, Ebonyi State University/Alex-Ekwueme Federal Teaching Hospital, Truro, United Kingdom

Dr. Chike John Okeke
Department of Urology, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dorking Road, Epsom KT18 7EG London

Source of Support: None
Conflict of Interest: None

Background: Urinary catheters are an important armamentarium of urologic practice. Several indications for their use exist. A good knowledge of the details surrounding every urinary catheter inserted is necessary for the proper management of the patients. Inadequate documentation can lead to complications such as urinary tract infection or even forgotten catheters.

Objectives: This study aimed at auditing the practice of documentation of urinary catheter parameters in our hospital as a means to improving the standard of care and aligning with international best practices with respect to the use of urinary catheters in our hospital.

Materials and Methods: This study was a 3-month audit on the quality of documentation on the parameters of each urinary catheter use in Alex Ekwueme Federal University Teaching Hospital, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. The parameters included the indication for catheterisation, route of catheterisation, staff who catheterised, size of catheter, type of catheter, volume of water used for inflating catheter balloon, volume of urine drained, if aseptic technique was followed during catheterisation, informed consent and complications encountered. Data were summarised as frequencies and means. Statistical significance was pegged at P < 0.05.

Results: Seventy-four patients were men, whereas two were women. The mean age of the patients was 67.29 ± 15.17 years. Overall, sex (76 [100%]), age (76 [100%]) and route of catheterisation (68 [89.5%]) were the three most commonly documented information. The documentation on complications and volume of fluid instilled to inflate the catheter balloon were the least-documented parameters (6 [7.9%] and 11 [14.5%], respectively). The following parameters were better documented in the SPC arm: The staff who passed the catheter p = 0.000), the type of catheter passed (p = 0.004), asepsis (p = 0.001) and acquisition of informed consent (p = 0.043).

Conclusion: Documentation following urinary catheter use was noted to be poor in this study. Documentation of catheter parameters was noted to be higher in patients who had SPC than those who had urethral catheterisation.