You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Urinary Tract Infection following Instrumentation for Urodynamic Testing
Richard J. Hamill, Charles E. Wright, Nita Andres and Maureen A. Koza
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Vol. 10, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 26-32
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30145177
Page Count: 7
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Urodynamics, Infections, Urinary tract infections, Urine, Bladder, Transducers, Cystoscopy, Pressure sensors, Catheters, Infection control
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
After identifying a temporal cluster of urinary tract infections in patients who had undergone urodynamic procedures, we examined the techniques within the urodynamic laboratory and retrospectively reviewed charts of all 155 patients tested in the previous six months. The rate of acquired urinary tract infections was 18.7%. Risk factors for infection included undergoing cystometrograms and being subject to the first procedure performed in a day. Technical errors in the performance of the urodynamic studies included failure to completely disassemble the apparatus upon completion of a procedure, failure to use sterile components, and lapses in aseptic technique. Bacteria implicated in the outbreak were isolated from tubing, transducers, and flush solutions. After the institution of appropriate technique, all patients tested in the subsequent six months were followed. The rate of acquired urinary tract infection dropped to 5%. Urodynamic apparatus should be completely disassembled following the completion of a procedure; reassembly using sterile components should occur immediately prior to the next procedure; aseptic technique should be maintained; and patients should undergo routine urine screening before a procedure. Surveillance of urodynamic procedures may reveal correctable flaws in technique.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology © 1989 Cambridge University Press