You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Training & Skills Assessment I1 Apr 2018MP01-13 VARIATIONS IN PROVIDER MANAGEMENT OF GROSS HEMATURIA DURING CONTINUOUS BLADDER IRRIGATION: AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT Tony Chen, Claudia Covelli, Akshay Randad, Eleftherios Kampianakis, Allegra Branch, Jialu Sun, John Gore, and Robert Sweet Tony ChenTony Chen More articles by this author , Claudia CovelliClaudia Covelli More articles by this author , Akshay RandadAkshay Randad More articles by this author , Eleftherios KampianakisEleftherios Kampianakis More articles by this author , Allegra BranchAllegra Branch More articles by this author , Jialu SunJialu Sun More articles by this author , John GoreJohn Gore More articles by this author , and Robert SweetRobert Sweet More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.119AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Decisions regarding continuous bladder irrigation (CBI) management such as irrigation rate titration and irrigation cessation rely on the subjective observations of multiple healthcare providers including resident trainees, nurses, and attending physicians. We surveyed healthcare providers at our institution to understand the ranges of tolerable hematuria between different provider groups during active CBI management. METHODS Simubleed 100 (Spectra Group Limited, Inc) is a high-fidelity blood simulant that was titrated with saline to different concentrations to create a range of increasingly severe gross hematuria specimens numbered 1 to 25. Actively practicing surgical ward nurses, urology residents and urology faculty were presented with the samples and surveyed on which degrees of hematuria would mandate increased or decreased rates of irrigation. Attendings and residents were additionally surveyed on which degrees of hematuria would mandate a clamp trial. Each participant indicated their experience level and completed an Ishihara color blindness test. Responses between participant groups were compared with ANOVA and independent samples t-tests. RESULTS Of 54 participants surveyed, 13 were urology residents, 27 were ward nurses, and 14 were attending urologists. 5 attendings who had not interacted with a CBI patient within the previous 12 months were excluded. No participants demonstrated color vision deficiency. Attendings reported more years of experience (p=0.001, p=.002) than nurses and residents, and more confidence in managing CBI (p=0.01) than nurses. There was no significant difference between groups in the upper and lower bounds of hematuria severity for titrating CBI irrigation rates. We observed a trend that residents would initiate CBI clamp trials at darker hematuria values than would attending physicians(p=0.08). CONCLUSIONS At a single-institution, we observed excellent congruency, irrespective of provider experience, in the titration parameters of CBI. This congruency is notable in the context of the inherent subjectivity and variability in evaluating hematuria severity and despite the absence of a formal CBI curriculum. This study informs future work to formalize standard ranges for the titration of CBI among hematuria patients. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e7 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Tony Chen More articles by this author Claudia Covelli More articles by this author Akshay Randad More articles by this author Eleftherios Kampianakis More articles by this author Allegra Branch More articles by this author Jialu Sun More articles by this author John Gore More articles by this author Robert Sweet More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...