Primum non nocere (first do no harm) is an ancient Latin phrase that reminds nurses that the first principle of healthcare is not to harm those entrusted to our care (Nazarko, 2008). A research article in health has the main objectives of obtaining evidence to solve healthcare problems and investigating healthcare issues (Richardson-Tench, Taylor, Kermode, & Roberts, 2011). This paper will critique a research article on urinary catheterisation and attempt to critically analyse the effectiveness of the researcher’s ability to solve and investigate issues. Other research articles of matching topic and will be used in comparison. The research article of interest in this analysis was composed in 2006 by Seymour, C. It is titled ‘Audit of catheter-associated UTI using silver alloy-coated Foley catheters’. It is sourced from the British Journal of Nursing, and is located in volume 15, issue number 11, on pages 598-603. The title of the article is suitable to the research. It is presented clearly and is proven to be appropriate through its integration in numerous arguments of the article.
The main issue discussed in this research article is the high prevalence of nosocomial infection in patients from the use of varying types of Indwelling Catheter (IDC). This article infers that the use of silver alloy-coated Foley catheters is more successful in reducing the rate of infection than the use of the standard catheters available. The above argument correlates with Nazarko (2008) where it is said that the use of silver-coated catheters can reduce the risks of infection.
Throughout the article, there is wide discussion on varying aspects of the topic. This includes the types of catheter used, the reason for use, the time period of insertion and the rates of associated infection. All of this discussion can be viewed as relevant as it ties in with core aspects of the research and analysis (Pomfret, Tew, & Eustice, 2009). The researcher’s purpose was to evaluate the reduction in the rate of nosocomial Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) experienced using a pre-test/post-test design. A major downfall in the article was its failure to include and exact number of patients that were used in evaluation. The research involved patients using the standard catheter system being compared to patients using a silver alloy-coated catheter over a 20-week period. The main objectives of the article encompassed: * Obtaining a baseline measure of the rate of CAUTI over a 10-week period * Evaluate the rate of CAUTI over a 10-weekperiod following the introduction of a silver alloy-coated catheter into practice across the hospital * Measure length of stay of catheterized patients in the baseline and evaluation periods * Identify reasons for catheterization
* Provide an economic analysis of any cost avoidance potential arising from the use of silver alloy-coated Foley catheter. The above outlined objectives are all reasonable and measurable making them appropriate for the research article.
The hypothesis of this quantitative research was that the use of silver alloy hydrogel-coated catheters instead of standard catheters was expected to cause a reduction in CAUTI by 20%. The approach included 10 weeks using standard catheters (baseline period) and 10 weeks using silver alloy hydrogel-coated catheters (evaluation period). This structure is similar to that used in Kassler, & Barnett (2008) where there was a set control of 4 months for patients using the standard catheters, followed by 4 months of the introduction of the new ‘silver’ catheter. The purpose of using the ‘silver’ alloy coated catheters is backed up by Nazarko (2008) where it states “third century writings indicate that our ancestors believed that silver protected from infection”. Another article was in agreeance with the use of silver, suggesting that is has properties that inhibit bacterial colonisation (Bardsley, 2009). The approach and...
References: Bardsley, A. (2009). Coated catheters - reviewing the literature. Journal Of Community Nursing, 23(2), 15-16.
Beattie, M., & Taylor, J
Hart, S. (2008). Urinary catheterisation... clinical skills: 40. Nursing Standard, 22(27), 44-48.
Kassler, J., & Barnett, J
McGowan, C. (2012). Patients ' Confidentiality. Critical Care Nurse, 32(5), 61-65.
Pomfret, I., Tew, L., & Eustice, S. (2009). Reducing encrustation and catheter blockage. Journal Of Community Nursing, 23(10), 32.
Richardson-Tench, M., Taylor, B., Kermode, S., and Roberts, K
Scott, B. (2010). Clinical and cost effectiveness of urethral catheterisation: a review. Journal Of Perioperative Practice, 20(7), 235-240.
Turner, B., & Dickens, N. (2011). Long-term urethral catheterisation. Primary Health Care, 21(4), 32-39.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document