Managing long term indwelling urinary catheters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
### What you need to know Around in 90 000 people in the UK live with a long term catheter (one that has been in place for four weeks or more).1 Use of catheters varies considerably, suggesting differences in how or whether they are used. For example, in a study of more than 4000 people aged over 65 receiving domiciliary care in 11 European countries, long term catheter use ranged from 0% (Netherlands) to 23% (Italy).2 Problems with long term catheters, such as infections or blockage, affect individuals’ lives and healthcare resources, particularly out-of-hours services.3 This article aims to help healthcare professionals address the needs of any person living with or making the decision to have a long term indwelling urinary catheter (examples shown in fig 1). Fig 1 Examples of indwelling catheters Urinary retention and urinary incontinence are the two main indications for long term catheters. An algorithm providing an overview of the process for deciding between a long term indwelling catheter and an alternative management options (box 1), is shown in figure 2.45678 Discussion about urinary problems and management options can involve a range of healthcare professionals, including those in primary, community, or secondary care, physicians, and nurses. Box 1 ### Commonly used non-invasive incontinence managementRETURN TO TEXT
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 | 0.001 |
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".