Download PDF
Aktuelle Urol 2019; 50(06): 629-638
DOI: 10.1055/a-0914-8516
S2e-Leitlinie
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Harninkontinenz bei geriatrischen Patienten: Hilfsmittel, qualifizierte Pflegekraft und Harnblasenlangzeitdrainage

Urinary incontinence in geriatric patients: Continence products, specialized continence nurses and indwelling catheter
Andreas Wiedemann
1   Lehrstuhl für Geriatrie, Universität Witten/Herdecke
2   Evangelisches Krankenhaus Witten gGmbH
,
Klaus Becher
3   Klinik für Geriatrie und Frührehabilitation, Helios Hanseklinikum Stralsund
,
Barbara Bojack
,
Sigrid Ege
4   Geriatrische Abteilung, Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus Stuttgart
,
Silke von der Heide
,
Ruth Kirschner-Hermanns
5   Neuro-Urologie im Chirurgischen Zentrum, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 November 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung 1/2019 wurde ein update der seit 2005 in AWMF eingestellten und fortlaufend aktualisierten Leitlinie „Harninkontinenz bei geriatrischen Patienten – Diagnostik und Therapie“ durch die interdisziplinäre Arbeitsgruppe „Harninkontinenz“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geriatrie (DGG) publiziert. Aus dieser Leitlinie, die als offizielle Leitlinie DGG akkreditiert ist, stellt der vorliegende Artikel das Kapitel „Hilfsmittel, qualifizierte Pflegekraft, Harnblasenlangzeitdrainage“ dar.

Methodik In einem strukturierten Bewertungsprozess identifizierte eine Literaturrecherche zunächst die vorhandene Literatur im Kontext des „geriatrischen Patienten“, wie er als zumeist über 70jährig und multimorbid oder über 80jährig durch die Fachgesellschaften definiert ist. Primäre Berücksichtigung fanden randomisierte, doppelblinde, plazebokontrollierte Studien sowie bereits vorhandene Leitlinien zum Thema. Wo keine solchen Untersuchungen vorlagen oder aus methodischen Gründen prinzipiell nicht durchführbar sind, wurden auch Publikationen anderen Designs (nicht randomisierte Untersuchungen, Fallkontrollstudien) zur Leitlinienerstellung herangezogen. Die daraus resultierenden Leitlinienempfehlungen wurden in einem strukturierten Abstimmungsprozess unterzogen; das Ergebnis ist in Prozent der zustimmenden Gruppenmitgliedern angegeben.

Ergebnisse Eine Hilfsmittelversorgung oder Harnblasenlangzeitdrainage per Kondomurinal, transurethralem oder suprapubischen Katheter kommt passager oder als Definitiv-Maßnahme dann in Frage, wenn andere Therapieformen nicht anwendbar sind oder nicht gewünscht werden. Der Einsatz einer qualifizierten Pflegekraft ist mit nicht-pharmakologischen Interventionen wirksam und ist bei beratungsintensiven Therapieformen wie dem Toilettentraining oder einer Hilfsmittelanpassung oder der Restharnbestimmung sinnvoll.

Schlussfolgerungen Besonders in Einrichtungen, die eine Vielzahl von inkontinenten geriatrischen Patienten betreuen, ist der abgestimmte Einsatz von spezialisierten Pflegekräften sinnvoll. Unter bestimmten Bedingungen stellt auch eine Palliativversorgung einer Harninkontinenz eine Therapiemaßnahme im Kontext der geriatrischen Inkontinenzbehandlung dar.

Abstract

Introduction 1/2019 we presented an update of the AWMF guideline ‘urinary incontinence in frail elderly – diagnostics and therapy’. Since its introduction in 2015 the guideline has been under a continuous revision process by the working group ‘Incontinence’ of the German Society for Geriatrics (DGG). From this guideline which is accredited as an official guideline of the DGG we present here the chapter about continence products, specialized continence nurses and indwelling catheter.

Methods A profound literature search was done in a structured evaluation process in the context of a ‘frail elderly’. Most medical societies define a ‘frail elderly’ as someone older than 70 years and multimorbide or older than 80y. We focused on randomized, double blind, placebo controlled studies as well as already published guidelines in this field. In the case no studies were available or not feasible other publications such as not randomized studies or case reports were taken into consideration for our guideline. Recommendations resulted from a structured voting process and the results are stated as percentage of members who agreed.

Results In case of failed or not wanted incontinence treatment, options like an indwelling transurethral or suprapubic catheter or a condom catheter in men maybe the best transient or definite solution. Trained specialized continence nurses have proven to be beneficial in conservative treatment modalities, such as toilet training or measuring residual urine. They can further consult patients and carers to enhance physical environment to reduce incontinence.

Conclusion Especially in institutions caring for frail elderly a coordinated care of specialized a multidisciplinary setting of continence nurses and doctors are beneficial for those affected. Under certain conditions palliative treatment should be included in geriatric incontinence care.

Schlüsselwörter

Vorlagen - Betteinlagen - Kondomurinal - Umgebungsanpassung - suprapubischer Katheter

Keywords

pads - continence products - condom urinal - indwelling transurethral catheter - indwelling suprapubic catheter - enhancing physical environment
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Omli R, Skotnes LH, Romild U. et al. Pad per day usage, urinary incontinence and urinary tract infections in nursing home residents. Age Ageing 2010; 39: 549-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dunn S, Kowanko I, Paterson J. et al. Systematic review of the effectiveness of urinary continence products. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2002; 29: 129-142
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brazzelli M, Shirran E, Vale L. Absorbent products for containing urinary and/or fecal incontinence in adults. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2002; 29: 45-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cottenden AM, Rothwell JG, Leander H. et al. An investigation of the repeatability and reproducibility of ISO 11948-1 (the Rothwell method) for measuring the absorption capacity of incontinence pads. Med Eng Phys 2002; 24: 159-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pfisterer MH, Johnson 2nd TM, Jenetzky E. et al. Geriatric patients' preferences for treatment of urinary incontinence: a study of hospitalized, cognitively competent adults aged 80 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007; 55: 2016-2022
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hebel JR, Warren JW. The use of urethral, condom, and suprapubic catheters in aged nursing home patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1990; 38: 777-784
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ouslander JG, Greengold B, Chen S. Complications of chronic indwelling urinary catheters among male nursing home patients: a prospective study. J Urol 1987; 138: 1191-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ouslander JG, Greengold B, Chen S. External catheter use and urinary tract infections among incontinent male nursing home patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1987; 35: 1063-1070
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Warren JW. Urethral catheters, condom catheters, and nosocomial urinary tract infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17: 212-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zimakoff J, Stickler DJ, Pontoppidan B. et al. Bladder management and urinary tract infections in Danish hospitals, nursing homes, and home care: a national prevalence study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17: 215-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Stelling JD, Hale AM. Protocol for changing condom catheters in males with spinal cord injury. SCI Nurs 1996; 13: 28-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Saint S, Lipsky BA, Baker PD. et al. Urinary catheters: what type do men and their nurses prefer?. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 1453-1457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Vapnek JM, Couillard DR, Stone AR. Is sphincterotomy the best management of the spinal cord injured bladder?. J Urol 1994; 151: 961-964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Edlich RF, Bailey T, Pine SA. et al. Biomechanical performance of silicone and latex external condom catheters. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2000; 10: 291-299
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gear AJ, Nguyen WD, Bealle MA. et al. Evaluation of a new external condom catheter system. Med Prog Technol 1996; 21: 181-185
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Campbell K, Woodbury MG, Whittle H. et al. A clinical evaluation of 3M no sting barrier film. Ostomy Wound Manage 2000; 46: 24-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 McConnell EA. Applying a condom catheter. Nursing 2001; 31: 70
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dwivedi AK, Singh S, Goel A. Massive urethral diverticulum: a complication of condom catheter use. Br J Nurs 2012; 21: S20-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jeng HS, Wu WJ, Tsai HN. et al. A rare and lethal complication of external collecting device for neuropathic voiding dysfunction--a case report. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2002; 18: 99-101
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kawoosa NU. Isolated gangrene of the penis in a paraplegic patient secondary to a condom catheter. Indian J Surg 2011; 73: 304-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mason SE, DeVilliers P, Andea AA. Lymphedematous fibroepithelial polyps of the penis associated with long-term condom catheter use: case report and review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol 2009; 36: 906-909
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Palmero Marti JL, Bonillo Garcia MA, Pacheco Bru JJ. et al. [Necrosis of the skin of the penis as a complication of the use of a urine collector]. Actas Urol Esp 2003; 27: 155-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pidde TJ, Little JW. Hydronephrosis due to improper condom catheter use. J Am Paraplegia Soc 1994; 17: 168-170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Reiche T, Lisby G, Jorgensen S. et al. A prospective, controlled, randomized study of the effect of a slow-release silver device on the frequency of urinary tract infection in newly catheterized patients. BJU Int 2000; 85: 54-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fader M, Pettersson L, Dean G. et al. The selection of female urinals: results of a multicentre evaluation. Br J Nurs 1999; 8: 918-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Cottenden AM, Dean GE, Brooks RJ. et al. Disposable bedpads for incontinence: predicting their clinical leakage properties using laboratory tests. Med Eng Phys 1998; 20: 347-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sprott MS, Kearns AM, Keenlyside D. A microbiological study of absorbent pads. J Hosp Infect 1988; 12: 125-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Stansfield R, Caudle S. Bacillus cereus and orthopaedic surgical wound infection associated with incontinence pads manufactured from virgin wood pulp. J Hosp Infect 1997; 37: 336-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cottenden AM, Moore KN, Fader MJ. et al. Is there a risk of cross-infection from laundered reusable bedpads?. Br J Nurs 1999; 8: 1161-1163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jacobs M, Wyman JF, Rowell P. et al. Continence nurses: a survey of who they are and what they do. Urol Nurs 1998; 18: 13-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Newman DK. Urinary incontinence management in the USA: the role of the nurse. Br J Nurs 1996; 5: 78 , 80, 82-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rhodes P, Parker G. The role of the continence adviser in England and Wales. Int J Nurs Stud 1995; 32: 423-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Roe B, Wilson K, Doll H. Public awareness and health education: findings from an evaluation of health services for incontinence in England. Int J Nurs Stud 2001; 38: 79-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Shaw C, Williams KS, Assassa RP. Patients' views of a new nurse-led continence service. J Clin Nurs 2000; 9: 574-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Thomas S, Billington A, Getliffe K. Improving continence services--a case study in policy influence. J Nurs Manag 2004; 12: 252-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Williams KS, Assassa RP, Smith NK. et al. Development, implementation and evaluation of a new nurse-led continence service: a pilot study. J Clin Nurs 2000; 9: 566-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Matharu GS, Assassa RP, Williams KS. et al. Continence nurse treatment of women's urinary symptoms. Br J Nurs 2004; 13: 140-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Williams KS, Assassa RP, Cooper NJ. et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new nurse-led continence service: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 2005; 55: 696-703
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Moore KH, O'Sullivan RJ, Simons A. et al. Randomised controlled trial of nurse continence advisor therapy compared with standard urogynaecology regimen for conservative incontinence treatment: efficacy, costs and two year follow up. BJOG 2003; 110: 649-657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Foote AJ, Moore KH. The cost of urogynaecological treatments: which are more cost-effective?. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 47: 240-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Borrie MJ, Bawden M, Speechley M. et al. Interventions led by nurse continence advisers in the management of urinary incontinence: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 2002; 166: 1267-1273
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Palese A, Carniel G. The effects of a multi-intervention incontinence care program on clinical, economic, and environmental outcomes. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2011; 38: 177-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Du Moulin MF, Hamers JP, Paulus A. et al. Effects of introducing a specialized nurse in the care of community-dwelling women suffering from urinary incontinence: a randomized controlled trial. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2007; 34: 631-640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Gurwitz JH, DuBeau C, Mazor K. et al. Use of Indwelling Urinary Catheters in Nursing Homes: Implications for Quality Improvement Efforts. J Am Geriatr Soc 2016; 64: 2204-2209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Jonsson K, Emanuelsson-Loft AL, Nasic S. et al. Urine bladder catheters in nursing home patients: a one-day point prevalence study in a Swedish county. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2010; 44: 320-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Ringert RH, Gross AJ. [Bladder catheter or suprapubic fistula? Indications and contraindications]. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd 1996; 113: 713-717
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Ahluwalia RS, Johal N, Kouriefs C. et al. The surgical risk of suprapubic catheter insertion and long-term sequelae. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2006; 88: 210-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Jacob P, Rai BP, Todd AW. Suprapubic catheter insertion using an ultrasound-guided technique and literature review. BJU Int 2012; 110: 779-784
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Chapple A, Prinjha S, Salisbury H. How users of indwelling urinary catheters talk about sex and sexuality: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 2014; 64: e364-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Heudorf U, Gasteyer S, Muller M. et al. Prevention and control of catheter-associated urinary tract infections - implementation of the recommendations of the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) in nursing homes for the elderly in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. GMS Hyg Infect Control 2016; 11: Doc15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Fowler S, Godfrey H, Fader M. et al. Living with a long-term, indwelling urinary catheter: catheter users' experience. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2014; 41: 597-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Wilde MH, Getliffe K, Brasch J. et al. A new urinary catheter-related quality of life instrument for adults. Neurourol Urodyn 2010; 29: 1282-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar