BladderSafe

Background Indwelling urinary catheters are commonly used for patients undergoing general and orthopaedic surgery. Despite infectious and non-infectious harms of urinary catheters, there is limited guidance available to surgery teams regarding appropriate perioperative catheter use. Objective Using the RAND Corporation/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method, we assessed the appropriateness of indwelling urinary catheter placement and different timings of catheter removal for routine general and orthopaedic surgery procedures. Methods Two multidisciplinary panels consisting of 13 and 11 members (physicians and nurses) for general and orthopaedic surgery, respectively, reviewed the available literature regarding the impact of different perioperative catheter use strategies. Using a standardised, multiround rating process, the panels independently rated clinical scenarios (91 general surgery, 36 orthopaedic surgery) for urinary catheter placement and postoperative duration of use as appropriate (ie, benefits outweigh risks), inappropriate or of uncertain appropriateness. Results Appropriateness of catheter use varied by procedure, accounting for procedure-specific risks as well as expected procedure time and intravenous fluids. Procedural appropriateness ratings for catheters were summarised for clinical use into three groups: (1) can perform surgery without catheter; (2) use intraoperatively only, ideally remove before leaving the operating room; and (3) use intraoperatively and keep catheter until postoperative days 1–4. Specific recommendations were provided by procedure, with postoperative day 1 being appropriate for catheter removal for first voiding trial for many procedures. Conclusion We defined the appropriateness of indwelling urinary catheter use during and after common general and orthopaedic surgical procedures. These ratings may help reduce catheter-associated complications for patients undergoing these procedures.

Interventions to reduce urinary catheter use involve lists of "appropriate" indications developed from limited evidence without substantial multidisciplinary input. Implementing these lists, however, is challenging given broad interpretation of indications, such as "critical illness." To refine criteria for appropriate catheter use—defined as use in which benefits outweigh risks—the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied. After reviewing the literature, a 15-member multidisciplinary panel of physicians, nurses, and specialists in infection prevention rated scenarios for catheter use as appropriate, inappropriate, or of uncertain appropriateness by using a standardized, multiround rating process. The appropriateness of Foley catheters, intermittent straight catheters (ISCs), and external condom catheters for hospitalized adults on medical services was assessed in 299 scenarios, including urinary retention, incontinence, wounds, urine volume measurement, urine sample collection, and comfort. The scenarios included patient-specific issues, such as difficulty turning and catheter placement challenges. The panel rated 105 Foley scenarios (43 appropriate, 48 inappropriate, 14 uncertain), 97 ISC scenarios (15 appropriate, 66 inappropriate, 16 uncertain), and 97 external catheter scenarios (30 appropriate, 51 inappropriate, 16 uncertain). The refined criteria clarify that Foley catheters are appropriate for measuring and collecting urine only when fluid status or urine cannot be assessed by other means; specify that patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) need specific medical indications for catheters because ICU location alone is not an appropriate indication; and recognize that Foley and external catheters may be pragmatically appropriate to manage urinary incontinence in select patients. These new appropriateness criteria can inform large-scale collaborative and bedside efforts to reduce inappropriate urinary catheter use.