Early urinary catheter removal after rectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Urinary catheters are placed after rectal surgery to prevent urinary retention, but prolonged use may increase the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). This review evaluated the non-inferiority of early urinary catheter removal compared with late removal for acute urinary retention risk after rectal surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1980 to February 2019. RCTs comparing early versus late catheter removal after rectal surgery were eligible. Primary outcomes were acute urinary retention and UTI; the secondary outcome was length of hospital stay. Early catheter removal was defined as removal up to 2 days after surgery, with late removal after postoperative day 2. The non-inferiority margin from an included trial was used for analysis of change in urinary retention (ΔNI = 15 per cent). Pooled estimates of risk differences (RDs) were derived from random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Four trials were included, consisting of 409 patients. There was insufficient evidence to conclude non-inferiority of early versus late catheter removal for acute urinary retention (RD 9 (90 per cent c.i. -1 to 19) per cent; PNI = 0·31). Early catheter removal was superior for UTI (RD -11 (95 per cent c.i. -17 to -4) per cent; P = 0·001). Results for length of stay were mixed. There were insufficient data to conduct subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: The existing literature is inconclusive for non-inferiority of early versus late urinary catheter removal for acute urinary retention. Early catheter removal is superior in terms of reducing the risk of UTI.

ANTECEDENTES: Las sondas urinarias se colocan después de la cirugía rectal para prevenir la retención urinaria, pero su uso prolongado puede aumentar el riesgo de infección del tracto urinario. Esta revisión evaluó si la retirada precoz de la sonda urinaria no fue inferior a la retirada tardía del catéter en cuanto al riesgo de retención urinaria aguda tras cirugía rectal. MÉTODOS: Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos MEDLINE, Embase y en el Registro Central Cochrane de Ensayos Controlados desde enero de 1980 hasta febrero de 2019. Se consideraron elegibles los ensayos controlados aleatorizados que comparaban la retirada precoz y tardía de la sonda tras cirugía rectal. Las variables principales fueron la retención urinaria aguda y la infección del tracto urinario. La variable secundaria fue la duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Se consideró retirada precoz cuando ésta ocurrió hasta el segundo día postoperatorio mientras que más allá de ese tiempo se consideró retirada tardía. El margen de no inferioridad de uno de los ensayos incluidos se utilizó para el análisis de la retención urinaria (ΔNI = 15%). Las estimaciones agrupadas de las diferencias de riesgo se derivaron de los modelos de efectos aleatorios. El riesgo de sesgo se evaluó utilizando una herramienta de riesgo de sesgo Cochrane modificada. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron cuatro ensayos que incluyeron un total de 409 pacientes. No se encontraron evidencias suficientes para concluir la no inferioridad de la retirada precoz del catéter versus la retirada tardía para la retención urinaria aguda (diferencia de riesgo, risk difference, RD 9%, i.c. del 90% -1% a 19%, valor de la P para no inferioridad, P value for non-inferiority, PNI = 0,31). La retirada precoz del catéter fue superior con relación a la infección del tracto urinario (RD -11%, IC del 95%: -17% a -4%, P = 0,001). Los resultados de la duración de la estancia hospitalaria fueron mixtos. No hubo datos suficientes para realizar análisis de subgrupos. CONCLUSIÓN: La literatura existente no es concluyente para determinar la no inferioridad de la retirada precoz de la sonda urinaria versus la retirada tardía con relación a la retención urinaria aguda. La retirada precoz de la sonda es superior y reduce el riesgo de infección del tracto urinario.

Pulling together and pulling apart: influences of convergence and divergence on distributed healthcare teams.

Effective healthcare requires both competent individuals and competent teams. With this recognition, health professions education is grappling with how to factor team competence into training and assessment strategies. These efforts are impeded, however, by the absence of a sophisticated understanding of the the relationship between competent individuals and competent teams . Using data from a constructivist grounded theory study of team-based healthcare for patients with advanced heart failure, this paper explores the relationship between individual team members' perceived goals, understandings, values and routines and the collective competence of the team. Individual interviews with index patients and their healthcare team members formed Team Sampling Units (TSUs). Thirty-seven TSUs consisting of 183 interviews were iteratively analysed for patterns of convergence and divergence in an inductive process informed by complex adaptive systems theory. Convergence and divergence were identifiable on all teams, regularly co-occurred on the same team, and involved recurring themes. Convergence and divergence had nonlinear relationships to the team's collective functioning. Convergence could foster either shared action or collective paralysis; divergence could foster problematic incoherence or productive disruption. These findings advance our understanding of the complex relationship between the individual and the collective on a healthcare team, and they challenge conventional narratives of healthcare teamwork which derive largely from acute care settings and emphasize the importance of common goals and shared mental models. Complex adaptive systems theory helps us to understand the implications of these insights for healthcare teams' delivery of care for the complex, chronically ill.