Is reducing the early postoperative complications of percutaneous suprapubic catheterization affected by the method of healthcare education in low-literacy patients? A prospective randomized comparative study

Abstract

Background: Suprapubic catheters (SPCs) are associated with a wide spectrum of undesirable symptoms and complications, ranging from skin overgranulation to septicemia. They can be effectively managed through various medical and healthcare interventions. We compared the impact of illustrated brochure healthcare education (IBHE) and verbal-only healthcare education (VOHE) on early postoperative complications of SPC in patients with low literacy levels.

Materials and methods: Eighty patients with low literacy levels who underwent SPC insertion were randomly allocated to receive either IBHE or VOHE between January 2019 and June 2020. Variables, including postoperative complications (within 30 days), were compared. This study was approved by our institutional review board (IRB number: 1780011/2019).

Results: The IBHE and VOHE groups included 40 patients each. The mean age ± standard deviation was 52.75 ± 16.46 and 53.25 ± 17.19 years, respectively. Acute urinary retention was the main presenting symptom (36 [90%] vs. 34 [85%]), and benign prostatic hyperplasia was the main underlying pathology (16 [40%] vs. 15 [37.5%]). The incidence of SPC obstruction (p = 0.000), urine leakage (p = 0.006), falling out (p = 0.003), suprapubic pain (p = 0.012), exit skin manifestations (p = 0.000), bleeding (p = 0.041), change (p = 0.003), and hematuria (p = 0.000) was significantly lower in IBHE than in VOHE. However, catheter-associated bladder discomfort (p = 0.247), bacteriuria (p = 0.154), and gross pyuria (p = 0.625) were not significantly different between the groups. The frequency of Clavien-Dindo grades was significantly higher in the VOHE group than in the IBHE group. Grade I (87.5% vs. 67.5%, p = 0.032) and grade IIIa (2.5% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.007) were significantly more frequent in the highest grade in IBHE and VOHE groups, respectively.

Conclusions: Illustrated brochure healthcare education appears to be a suitable and effective method for educating low-literacy patients undergoing SPC insertion. It significantly reduced the incidence and grade of early postoperative SPC complications compared with VOHE, except for catheter-associated bladder discomfort, bacteriuria, and gross pyuria.

Keywords

Brochure education / Healthcare education / Low literacy / Postoperative complications / Suprapubic catheter

Acknowledgment

None.

Statement of ethics

This study was approved by the local institutional review board of Assiut Urology and Nephrology Hospital (IRB: 1780011/2019). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients to be included in the study. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflicts of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding source

None.

Author contributions

RAG: Concept design, surgical work, data collection, statistical analysis, writing, revision, approval;

SEA: Concept design, writing, supervision, approval;

RAK: Data collection, writing, statistical analysis, revision, approval;

NM: Surgical work, writing, revision, supervision, approval;

SSK: Writing, statistical analysis, revision, approval.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

[1] Jane Hall S, Harrison S, Harding C, Reid S, Parkinson R. British Association of Urological Surgeons Suprapubic catheter practice guidelines - revised. BJU Int 2020; 126(4):416-422.

[2] Kidd EA, Stewart F, Kassis NC, Hom E, Omar MI. Urethral (indwelling or intermittent) or suprapubic routes for short-term catheterisation in hospitalised adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015(12):CD004203.

[3] Blondal K, Ingadottir B, Einarsdottir H, et al. The effect of a short educational intervention on the use of urinary catheters: A prospective cohort study. Int J Qual Health Care 2016; 28(6):742-748.

[4] Seyhan Ak E, Özbaş A. The effect of education of nurses on preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infections in patients who undergo hip fracture surgery. J Clin Nurs 2018; 27(5-6):e1078-e1088.

[5] Alnaif MS, Alghanim SA. Patients' knowledge and attitudes towards health education: Implications for primary health care services in Saudi Arabia. J Family Community Med 2009; 16(1):27-32.

[6] Bullman S. Ins and outs of suprapubic catheters - A clinician's experience. Urol Nurs 2011; 31(5):259-263; quiz 264.

[7] English SF. Update on voiding dysfunction managed with suprapubic catheterization. Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6(Suppl 2):S180-S185.

[8] Hunter KF, Bharmal A, Moore KN. Long-term bladder drainage: Suprapubic catheter versus other methods: A scoping review. Neurourol Urodyn 2013; 32(7):944-951.

[9] Rigby D. An overview of suprapubic catheter care in community practice. Br J Community Nurs 2009; 14(7):278, 280, 282-284.

[10] Muhammad AS, Agwu NP, Abdulwahab-Ahmed A, Abdullahi K, Mungadi IA. Safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided percutaneous suprapubic cystostomy in resource-poor setting: A 7-year review. Urol Ann 2018; 10(1):24-28.

[11] Sugimura T, Arnold E, English S, Moore J. Chronic suprapubic catheterization in the management of patients with spinal cord injuries: Analysis of upper and lower urinary tract complications. BJU Int 2008; 101(11):1396-1400.

[12] Lavelle RS, Coskun B, Bacsu CD, Gliga LA, Christie AL, Lemack GE. Quality of life after suprapubic catheter placement in patients with neurogenic bladder conditions. Neurourol Urodyn 2016; 35(7):831-835.

[13] Nagao S, Saida Y, Enomoto T, et al. Prospective short-term feasibility study of perioperative suprapubic catheters in laparoscopic colectomy. Asian J Endosc Surg 2019; 12(1):64-68.

[14] Zango B, Kabore FA, Kabore M, et al. Suprapubic cystostomy at urological emergency unit of CHU-YO, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Indications, technique and complications. Open J Urol 2016; 6(4):67-71.

[15] Moncrief T, Gor R, Goldfarb RA, Jarosek S, Elliott SP; Trauma and Urologic Reconstruction Network of Surgeons. Urethral rest with suprapubic cystostomy for obliterative or nearly obliterative urethral strictures: Urethrographic changes and implications for management. J Urol 2018; 199(5):1289-1295.

[16] Eksi M, Arikan Y, Simsek A, et al. Factors affecting length of stay in Fournier's gangrene: A retrospective analysis of 10 years' data. Aktuelle Urol 2022; 53(3):262-268.

[17] Ahluwalia RS, Johal N, Kouriefs C, Kooiman G, Montgomery BS, Plail RO. The surgical risk of suprapubic catheter insertion and long-term sequelae. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2006; 88(2):210-213.

[18] Robinson J. Insertion, care and management of suprapubic catheters. Nurs Stand 2008; 23(8):49-56; quiz 58.

[19] Choi J. Literature review: Using pictographs in discharge instructions for older adults with low-literacy skills. J Clin Nurs 2011; 20(21-22):2984-2996.

[20] Safeer RS, Keenan J. Health literacy: The gap between physicians and patients. Am Fam Physician 2005; 72(3):463-468.

[21] Yamashita T, Kunkel SR. An international comparison of the association among literacy, education, and health across the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, and Bermuda: Implications for health disparities. J Health Commun 2015; 20(4):406-415.

[22] Bonkat G, Widmer AF, Rieken M, et al. Microbial biofilm formation and catheter-associated bacteriuria in patients with suprapubic catheterisation. World J Urol 2013; 31(3):565-571.