MP41-18 DIFFICULT FOLEY? A LOOK INTO DIFFICULT FOLEY CONSULTS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP41-18 DIFFICULT FOLEY? A LOOK INTO DIFFICULT FOLEY CONSULTS Katharina Mitchell, Amr Elbakry, Caitlyn Patton, John Barnard, and Chad Morley Katharina MitchellKatharina Mitchell More articles by this author , Amr ElbakryAmr Elbakry More articles by this author , Caitlyn PattonCaitlyn Patton More articles by this author , John BarnardJohn Barnard More articles by this author , and Chad MorleyChad Morley More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002607.18AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: While urethral catheters are usually placed without issue, many factors can make placement challenging. Here we aim to further understand reasons for difficulty and the role of urology consultation. METHODS: This is a prospective study that was conducted at a tertiary care hospital from April 2018 through March 2020. We prospectively collected data on multiple parameters including patient demographics, reason for consultation determined by consulting service, consulting service, whether the patient was ICU status, and the level of, and reason for difficulty determined by the urology team. Patients were divided into two groups according to level of difficulty. RESULTS: Most consultations were male patients (88.1%). The most common reason for consultation per consulting team was inability to advance at a level of the prostate (49.5%). Advanced interventions for foley placement which were investigated included guidewire, dilation, and cystoscopy-of these the most commonly utilized was guidewire (36.6% of cases). The most common reason for difficult placement, as determined by the urologist, was inadequate technique (26.7%). The level of difficulty was determined by set criteria of interventions employed by the urologist- the most commonly ascribed was level 3 (23.8%). Most common reason for consultation in the non-difficult group was resistance at the prostate, while the most common reason for difficulty was inadequate technique. When comparing foleys placed in the difficult and non-difficult classifications- it was seen using Chi-Squared statistical analysis that there was not a statistically significant difference among the groups when comparing variables such as age, gender, weight, BMI. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups when examining the reason for consults and reason for difficulty determined by urologist, 0.001 and 0.000 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an understanding of reasons for consultations regarding foley placement and different levels and reasons for difficulty, which can help optimize and improve the process of foley placement in the hospital setting. Source of Funding: None © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e727 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Katharina Mitchell More articles by this author Amr Elbakry More articles by this author Caitlyn Patton More articles by this author John Barnard More articles by this author Chad Morley More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...