The Relationship of Indwelling Urinary Catheters to Death, Length of Hospital Stay, Functional Decline, and Nursing Home Admission in Hospitalized Older Medical Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between indwelling urinary catheterization without a specific medical indication and adverse outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: General medical inpatient services at a teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred thirty-five patients aged 70 and older admitted without a specific medical indication for urinary catheterization. INTERVENTION: Indwelling urinary catheterization within 48 hours of admission. MEASUREMENTS: Death, length of hospital stay, decline in ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), and new admission to a nursing home. RESULTS: Indwelling urinary catheters were placed in 76 of the 535 (14%) patients without a specific medical indication. Catheterized patients were more likely to die in the hospital (6.6% vs 1.5% of those not catheterized, P=.006) and within 90 days of hospital discharge (25% vs 10.5%, P<.001); the greater risk of death with catheterization persisted in a propensity-matched analysis (hazard ratio (HR)=2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-5.65). Catheterized patients also had longer lengths of hospital stay (median, 6 days vs 4 days; P=.001); this association persisted in a propensity-matched analysis (HR=1.46, 95% CI=1.03-2.08). Catheterization was not associated (P>.05) with decline in ADL function or with admission to a nursing home. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of older patients, urinary catheterization without a specific medical indication was associated with greater risk of death and longer hospital stay.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".