This essay compares two articles written by different scholars on urinary tract infections caused by catheters. One is quantitative while the other is qualitative. However, it is imperative to have an insight of what such infections entail. According to (Warren, 2013), a urinary tract infection (UTI) is an infection that occurs in the urinary system that includes the bladder as well as the kidneys. Scholars such as (Tambyah & Oon, 2017) posit that it is uncommon for the urinary system to have germs, but if bacteria gain access to the system, an infection occurs. The articles that will be discussed include Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (quantitative) written by Lindsay Nicolle and Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections — Turning the Tide (qualitative) written by Susan Huang.
Introduction
Lindsay’s introduction captures the general statistics before delving into the subject. According to her introduction, she posits that about 70 to 80 percent of urinary tract infections are attributable to the use of the urethral catheter. She suggests that a urinary catheter is the most popular indwelling device with approximately 17.5 percent of patients in sixty-six European hospitals using a catheter and 23.6 percent in 183 US hospitals (Nicolle, 2015). She also points out that about 45 to 79 percent of patients in adult critical care units in the US had an indwelling catheter by 2011. Of those, 17 percent were in medical wards, 23 percent in surgical wards and 9 percent in rehabilitation units. She further claims in her introduction that urinary catheters are considered to be short-term when they are in situ for less than thirty days and chronic if they are in situ for thirty days and above. Nevertheless, Lindsay does not capture the severity of the infections in the introduction.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Review of the literature
Lindsay’s research article mainly relies on reports from other researchers’ articles to come up with several statistics. One of the reports that the researcher uses is the 2011 National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report. The survey was published in the American Journal of Infection Control and is a collection of data collected by hospitals taking part in the National Healthcare Safety Network survey. The other journals that the author uses are medical journals that are published by PubMed. The author uses the author journals to show how the infections are acquired, their prevalence, as well as the prevention measures that can be put in place. Besides, the literature review depicts the pathogenesis as well as the diagnosis of the infections.
Discussion of methodology
Lindsay relies on secondary sources to obtain data relevant to the topic of study. The surveys include reports from other researchers and surveying bodies. As mentioned earlier, the author uses Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report for statistics on the number of people in the US that use indwelling catheters in their urinary tracts. Lindsay approaches the topic by giving a brief overview of what it entails, the diagnosis as well as the prevention. In all the steps, she uses reports and surveys that are relevant to the specific subtopics.
Data analysis
The data that the author collects come from different countries such as the US, Britain, France, Netherlands, Italy, Germany among others. For instance, in the US long-term care facilities, about 3 to 10 percent of residents are managed with indwelling catheters compared to 12, 12.3 and 10.1 percent in Netherlands, Italy, and Germany respectively. The data analysis compares the severity of urinary tract infections in various countries, especially those that are perceived to have advanced medical care services and facilities.
Conclusion
The author concludes by stating that the use of indwelling urethral catheters is connected with increased symptoms of urinary tract infections and bacteremia as well as additional morbidity from non-infectious complications. Drawing from the programs that the author analyses in the article, Lindsay suggests that the programs ought to develop, implement, and institute policies and measures to reduce infections related to the use of catheters. Lindsay further writes that the programs that are developed ought to emphasize on the minimal use of indwelling catheters and as well remove them quickly when they are not required. Finally, she points out that healthcare facilities will need to consider the development of biofilm resistant catheter materials. Her conclusion relates to the topic under study as well as the various issues that are addressed in the article.
Protection of human rights and cultural considerations
Lindsay’s article is general and she does not conduct her research basing on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender or cultural aspects. She compares statistics across various first world countries and is devoid of any forms of prejudices. Therefore, her findings, as well as the information contained in the article, do not offend different groups of people.
Strengths and limitations of the study
One of the strengths of the study is that it extensively uses a large number of literature sources to come up with findings of the topic under study. Therefore, the information provided is not biased. The limitation of the study is that it does not have details of the prevalence of urinary tract infections arising from the use of catheters.
How the evidence informs the nursing practice
The article would have been more beneficial to the nursing practice if it discussed more of the prevalence of UTIs acquired through the use of catheters. However, the various types of infections that are discussed in the article help individuals taking various healthcare courses such as nursing to be wary of hospital-acquired infections such as UTIs.
Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections — Turning the Tide (qualitative) by Susan Huang.
Introduction
The objective of Huang’s article is to discuss infections caused by the use of catheters with the aim of reducing or preventing them. The study is also descriptive with no figures to support the claims brought forward. The author, therefore, strives to look at the methodologies that have been used in the past to prevent the occurrence of such infections. In the introduction, Huang alleges that there was a rise in such infections by 2012 (Huang, 2016). She also highlights in her introduction that her study is meant to show the potential for reduction of catheter-associated urinary tract infections nationally in the US.
Review of literature
Huang’s study explores various literature material to present its claims. Just like Lindsay, Huang also uses data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network Surveillance to present her points. The only difference is that Lindsay presents raw data from the report while Huang gives the data a different wording. A lot of other literature sources that Huang uses are extracted from the Web of Science. Most of the content discusses the methodologies that ought to be put in place to limit the use of catheters in patients.
Discussion of methodology
The approach used by Huang to come up with her findings and arguments is similar to that used by Lindsay. She does not go to the field to come up with primary data. Instead, she uses secondary sources of data such as journals and reports compiled by other researchers and relevant bodies. She also uses relevant internet sources such as the Web of Science. Her presentation is in the form of a narrative.
Data analysis
Huang’s data analysis is in the form of a critique as well as a basis for giving recommendations. She points out that the increase of UTIs as presented by various reports signifies the inability by various stakeholders to contain the infections. Several sample measures that Huang picks from other studies include sterile catheter insertion, prevention of backflow, maintenance of a closed drainage system, and aseptic technique for collecting urine for culture, among others.
Researcher’s conclusion
The conclusion provided by Huang arguably does not meet the threshold. She even raises a question in conclusion as to whether the use of one campaign method helps reduce the infections under study. Conventional wisdom suggests that such questions need to be stated in the background section so that the subsequent passages attempt to answer the concerns elicited. The conclusion ought to affirm the content of the research, particularly the recommendations provided. Huang’s conclusion, on the contrary, continues to criticize the various approaches that have been used over time to contain UTIs associated with the use of catheters.
Protection of human subjects and cultural considerations
Huang’s research is devoid of any cultural or human rights violations. Her approach to the topic is also general, and there is no place where the research bases on race or cultural factors to come up with its analysis. Everybody can thus read the article without feeling as being inappropriately targeted or mentioned.
Strengths and limitations of the study
The main strength of the study is that it uses a wide array of a literature review to state the claims depicted. Though it criticizes more, the concerns are supported by the numerous literature sources. The study though qualitative gives a hint of the prevalence of the infections under examination. The main limitation of the research is that it does not give specific data that shows the prevalence rates.
How the evidence informs nursing practice
The description of the prevalence rates warns nurses of the risks that the patients are exposed. The nurses and other healthcare experts can then try to limit the use of catheters. The recommendations given can be evaluated by nurses, after which they can pick the best method to use.
References
Huang, S. S. (2016). Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections—Turning the Tide.
Nicolle, L. E. (2015). Catheter-related urinary tract infection. Drugs & aging , 22 (8), 627-639.
Tambyah, P. A., & Oon, J. (2017). Catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Current opinion in infectious diseases , 25 (4), 365-370.
Warren, J. W. (2013). Catheter-associated urinary tract infections. International journal of antimicrobial agents , 17 (4), 299-303.
Links to research articles used
Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections — Turning the Tide — NEJM . (2018). New England Journal of Medicine . Retrieved 6 January 2018, from http://www.nejm.org/doi/ref/10.1056/NEJMe1604647#t=references
Nicolle, L. (2014). Catheter associated urinary tract infections. Antimicrobial Resistance And Infection Control , 3 (1), 23. doi:10.1186/2047-2994-3-23 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4114799/
