Premium
Quality control in urodynamics: a review of urodynamic traces from one centre
Author(s) -
Sullivan J.,
Lewis P.,
Howell S.,
Williams T.,
Shepherd A.M.,
Abrams P.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04054.x
Subject(s) - medicine , audit , urodynamic studies , urodynamic testing , quality (philosophy) , quality management , baseline (sea) , test (biology) , urology , urinary incontinence , operations management , paleontology , management system , philosophy , oceanography , management , epistemology , economics , biology , geology
OBJECTIVE To investigate quality control in our unit and to enable other units to compare their results, as experience from central reviews of urodynamic traces for multicentre trials has suggested that poor quality control is common. PATIENTS AND METHODS All consecutive male urodynamic tests conducted over 1 year were reviewed. A list of criteria to assess the quality of the records was devised, based upon International Continence Society guidelines on ‘good urodynamic practice’, and on other sources. Eligible traces were analysed for aspects of quality control, e.g. baseline pressures and coughs to test pressure transmission. The data were analysed to establish how often quality criteria were met, and identify areas for improvement. RESULTS In 100 eligible traces, the baseline detrusor pressure was 0–10 cmH 2 O in 86, and − 5 to +10 cmH 2 O in 94%. Baseline intravesical and abdominal pressure were 30–50 cmH 2 O in 68% and 73% of cases, respectively. Coughs were present before filling in 94%, during filling in 95%, before voiding in 72% and after voiding in 87% of cases. The cough‐test frequency was sufficient in 30% of traces. In 11 the intravesical pressure line fell out during voiding. CONCLUSION Most of the traces assessed met the quality criteria defined, but significant defects were not uncommon. Some of the problems identified suggest areas of urodynamic technique which should be studied in more detail. We intend to modify our quality control practices, and hope to show an improvement on re‐audit. We hope that other urodynamic departments will be encouraged to review their practice, and we aim to improve our results.