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

Publication Type:
Journal Article
Citation:
International Emergency Nursing, 2014, 22 (2), pp. 94 - 97
Issue Date:
2014-04-01
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. © 2013.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: