A prospective analysis of consultation for difficult urinary catheter insertion at tertiary care centres in Northern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Difficult urinary catheterization (DUC) is a frequent reason for urologic consultation. Literature regarding DUC is limited. The objective of the study is to examine the current practice pattern of DUC and identify strategies to reduce its incidence and related adverse events. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study of consultation for DUC at tertiary care centres in Edmonton, Alberta between October 2010 and February 2011. All urologic consultations for DUC in adults at the 2 tertiary hospitals were enrolled. Patients were managed according to the current regional standard of care established prior to the study. A clinical encounter questionnaire (CEQ) was completed by the urology service regarding details of the consultation and patient factors. CEQ results were tabulated and analyzed for trends, areas of strengths and weakness in the consultation process. RESULTS: In total, 89 patients were accrued to the study. Mean age was 67 years and 91% were male. Seventeen percent of patients had history of previous DUC and 65% had urologic history. Forty-two percent of patients had catheter placement without any auxiliary tools. Adverse events, including urosepsis, bladder perforation, hydrouterus, paraphimosis and urethral trauma, were experienced by 37% of patients. Significant urethral injury as a result of catheterization attempts occurred in 32%. Forty-one percent of consultations were classified as inappropriate and 53% occurred between 5 pm and 6:30 am. CONCLUSION: DUC is associated with significant patient morbidity and may often be preventable. This study highlights the need for implementation of preventive strategies, widespread education and increased awareness regarding catheter care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".