Long-term catheter management in the community: a population-based analysis of user characteristics, service utilisation and costs in England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term urinary catheters are problematic and burdensome for patients, carers and health services. Nursing practice to improve the management of long-term urinary catheters has been held back by a lack of evidence to support policy and practice. Little is known about who uses a catheter long term and the resources and costs needed for their management. Understanding these costs will help to target innovations to improve care. There have been no substantial innovations to urinary catheters or their management recently and no publications to characterise users and costs. AIM: To describe long-term catheter users and explore catheter-related service use and costs in England. METHODS: = 333) and triangulated, 2009-2012. Annual service costs (British pounds 2011) were computed. FINDINGS: Most catheter users (59.6%) were men, nearly three-quarters (71.2%) were over 70 years and 60.8% used a urethral catheter. Women tended to be younger than men and more likely to use a suprapubic catheter. The services used most frequently over 12 months were general practitioner (by 63.1%) and out of hours services (43.0%); 15.5% accessed Accident and Emergency services for urgent catheter-related care. Hospital use accounted for nearly half (48.9%) of total health service costs (mainly due to inpatient stays by 13.6% of participants); catheter supplies/medications were next most costly (25.7%). Half of all costs were accounted for by 14.2% of users. The median annual cost of services used was £6.38, IQR: £344-£1324; district nursing services added approximately a further £200 per annum. CONCLUSIONS: Finding better ways to reduce catheter problems (e.g. blockage, infection) that cause unplanned visits, urgent or hospital care should be a priority to improve quality of life for long-term catheter users and reduce health service expenditure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".