NR 449 Week 5 RUA Urinary Catheter Infections_A study in causation andpreventions

In the medical field, we see many different tools and equipment used to care for patients. You would think that the catheters used wouldn’t cause internal damage or health complications because it is meant to help prevent further injury. This isn’t always the case. Sometimes, things happen and cause patients to become even sicker than they already are. It’s never done on purpose. Sometimes, our body reacts to what we put into it; let’s take catheters, for example. One way a catheter is used is to drain urine from a patient when that patient is unable to do it themselves. However, the use of catheters can cause a health issue called CAUTI, which is an acronym for “Catheter-associated urinary tract infection”. CAUTI is one of the most common healthcare-associated infections in a hospital setting. Problem The purpose of this paper is to see how we can cut down the urinary tract infections caused by catheters and if antimicrobial-coated catheters will decrease the problem. Does the kind of catheter cause the infections, or is it because of something else? The significance of this problem is that it happens more often than we would like. Another important factor is that it is the cause of half of the hospital’s infections. We will discuss the different types of catheters to see which one is more effective in eliminating the problem that my group and I were assigned. We are researching how often they occur and do they occur more with antimicrobial catheters than standard catheters. Synthesis of the Literature (DO NOT MOVE the Matrix; it is an appendix) The first article talks about the “efficacy of antimicrobial catheters for the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infection.” (Muramatsu et al., 2019). Combing through the article it breaks down that they performed the study to see how the antimicrobial catheters would work. They took two controlled groups, and over a period, they collected data to see how it Another contrast was that one article got their data from Japan and the other got their data from Seoul. Also, different characteristics and these two articles show different ways that were used to try and prevent CAUTIs. Another difference was that patients were found to have complications of CAUTI after being admitted. Methods The study method for the Muramatsu article was a cross-sectional design. The data was gathered using Japan’s Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC). They collect data from the inpatients between April 2012 through March 2014. The DPC database had all the patients’ information down to the procedures they had. The method they used was that they selected patients based on different events that the patient went through. These events were if the patient’s principal diagnosis was a cerebral infarction if patients were admitted to the hospital within 3 days from a stroke, and if they selected patients that had an indwelling catheter B at least once during any hospitalizations. They ruled out patients who had both antimicrobial- mixed latex and antimicrobial-mixed silicon during any hospital stay.