Securement of the Indwelling Urinary Catheter: A Prevalence Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experts in urology recommend stabilizing of indwelling urinary catheters (IUCs) following urethral catheterization to prevent urethral injury and patient discomfort. However, catheter securement practices have not been well studied and there is some evidence that practices are not consistent. In this one-day prevalence study, conducted at one tertiary care hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, data was collected on 21 medical and surgical units. Convenience sampling was used to obtain adult participants with urinary catheters who could provide written informed consent or had a family caregiver available for proxy consent. From a total of 72 patients with IUCs 44 participated; 39% (17) were from medicine and 61% (27) from surgery units. The overall prevalence of catheter securement was 18% (n=8/44). The results from this study demonstrate that stabilizing urethral catheters is not a common occurrence for individuals at the centre surveyed. Further research is needed to explore factors that impact securement practices.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".