Securement of the Indwelling Urinary Catheter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were 4-fold: (1) to examine the proportion of indwelling urinary catheters that were secured in an acute care setting; (2) to determine the proportion of secured catheters that were secured correctly; (3) to examine the association of catheter securement with type of unit, age, sex, and location of insertion; and (4) to determine the proportion of units with catheter securement products available on the unit. DESIGN: Descriptive prevalence study. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: All medical and surgical units (n = 21) were surveyed for inpatients with indwelling urinary catheters in 1 urban tertiary care hospital in Western Canada. Critical care and pediatric units were excluded. METHODS: During a 6-hour period, 6 RNs data collectors recorded presence and accuracy of catheter securement, area where the participant was catheterized, and availability of securement products on unit. Data were collected using a data form designed for the study. RESULTS: Seventy-two of 370 inpatients had indwelling catheters on the day of the study. Of these, 61% (44/72) participated. The overall prevalence of catheter securement was 18% (8/44). Seven of the 8 secured catheters were secured correctly. The primary method of securement was a commercial adhesive device (6/8; 75%). Securement products were stocked on 47% of medicine units and 92% of surgical units. CONCLUSION: Findings are consistent with other studies and indicate that catheter securement practices are inadequate despite several guidelines published on 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".