A prospective comparative pilot study comparing the urine collection pad with clean catch urine technique in non-toilet-trained children

Publication Type:
Journal Article
International Emergency Nursing, 2014, 22 (2), pp. 94 - 97
Issue Date:
Full metadata record
Files in This Item:
Filename Description Size
A prospective comparative pilot study comparing the urine collection.pdfPublished Version239.61 kB
Adobe PDF
Introduction There are many different methods for collecting urine from paediatric patients in emergency departments. Therefore, the aims of the study were to: (i) Compare the contamination rate of urine collection pad samples (UCP) and clean catch urine (CCU). (ii) Compare the time taken for each urine collection technique. (iii) Undertake a comparative cost analysis of the two urine collection techniques. (iv) Survey parents/carers perceptions of the two urine collection techniques. Methods The three month study was a prospective non-randomised comparative paediatric pilot study. A purposeful sample of children, requiring a urine microscopy for clinical management, presenting to one district emergency department was enrolled in the study to compare two non-invasive techniques of urine collection. Results Thirty-three patients were enrolled and satisfactory samples were obtained from 22 patients. The heavy (mixed growth) contamination rate in the UCP group (n = 2; 9.1%) versus the CCU group (n = 1; 4.5%) was not statistically significant (p = 0.50 by Fisher’s exact test). The rate of agreement (n = 20; 91%) in diagnosing or excluding urinary tract infection between the two groups was high. The median time to urine collection between the two groups (UCP method 30 min; CCU 107.5 min) was statistically significant (p < 0.002, Mann–Whitney U test). Conclusions This study suggests that UCPs are practicable in Australasian Emergency Departments and may lead to faster diagnosis, disposition and reduced hospital stay.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: