Premium
Patients’ experience with intermittent catheterisation in everyday life
Author(s) -
CobussenBoekhorst Hanny,
Hermeling Erna,
Heesakkers John,
Gaal Betsie
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of clinical nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.94
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1365-2702
pISSN - 0962-1067
DOI - 10.1111/jocn.13146
Subject(s) - medicine , guideline , everyday life , inclusion (mineral) , qualitative research , medical diagnosis , psychology , social psychology , social science , pathology , sociology , political science , law
Aims and objectives This study reports about the experiences of 11 patients in the Netherlands who use intermittent self‐catheterisation to manage their symptoms. The aim of the study was to get insight in underlying barriers and facilitators for patients dealing with intermittent catheterisation in everyday life. Background Studies show that intermittent catheterisation has an impact on everyday life. A positive effect does not guarantee that patients maintain catheterisation over a longer period of time. After the implementation of a guideline, a quantitative study was performed to determine successful intermittent catheterisation. The patients of this study had previously taken part in this quantitative study. Design This is a qualitative multicentre study using semistructured in‐depth interviews with 11 patients between March–May 2013. Methods Inclusion criteria included patients of a quantitative study ( n = 124) with a variety of diagnoses referred to the outpatient clinic. Those who received instruction from the researcher and who at start of the study performed catheterisation ≤3 months were excluded. Of the total number that met the inclusion criteria, every fourth patient was invited to participate in an interview. Patients were asked about the introducing of intermittent catheterisation, the incorporation into everyday life, the progress after the instruction and guidance perceived, the cause of the bladder problem and the motivation to start intermittent catheterisation. Results Eleven interviews were performed (six males/five females). All patients described the instruction and follow‐up care as positive. Barriers were the preparation before the handling, which is more difficult than the catheterisation itself, and the fact that patients felt constrained by the need to plan convenient times to catheterise themselves. Conclusion This study shows that patients who perform catheterisation are satisfied about the instruction and follow‐up care. Important barriers in everyday life are the preparation and the need to plan convenient times. Relevance to clinical practice Interviewing patients gave important additional information about dealing with intermittent catheterisation in everyday life. Prescribers and teachers of intermittent catheterisation must realise that they often have to high expectations of patients when it comes to being flexible in frequency of catheterisation. It is important to realise that patients experience barriers of which healthcare workers are not always aware of, such as the preparation before the handling and feeling constrained by the need to plan convenient times to catheterise. The outcome of this study can be used to improve the content of patient information brochures and guidelines for intermittent catheterisation.