K. Malla, S. Singh, Brajesh Raj Chaudhary, Nabal Kishore Ray, Shivani Singh
{"title":"Quick-Wee method Versus Standard method for urine collection in infants 1-12 month old","authors":"K. Malla, S. Singh, Brajesh Raj Chaudhary, Nabal Kishore Ray, Shivani Singh","doi":"10.3126/nmmj.v2i2.41276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: Urinary Tract infections [UTI] often presents with fever and nonspecific findings in infants less than one year. So urine sample collection is mandatory for diagnosis or exclusion. Collecting Urine sample is very challenging in infants and choosing the method of collection must balance the reliability, speed and contamination. Clinical guidelines have different recommendations so there is a need for reliable collection method. Therefore this study was conducted to determine if a simple stimulation method (Quick–wee Method) increases the rate of clean catch voiding of urine within five minutes. \nMETHODS: A prospective age and sex matched case control study in 1-12 months children conducted from June 2017 – June 2018 in Pediatric ward of Manipal college of medical sciences, Pokhara, after Ethical clearance from Institutional review Board [IRB]. The study population was randomized to either clean catch midstream urine with stimulation [Quick–Wee method] or without stimulation [Standard method]. The primary outcome was voiding of urine within 5 minute. Secondary outcome were waiting time for voiding, successful collection, parental satisfaction, and contamination. The analysis was done using SPSS version 20 and a ‘p’value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. \nRESULTS: Waiting time for voiding in Quick wee group was less and statistically significant compared to standard group. There was 10% increment in voiding within 5 minutes in Quick wee group . It had higher successful urine collection rate (91.4%), slightly higher contamination rate (14.28%) but better parental satisfaction. \nCONCLUSIONS: Quick wee method is easy, reliable, successful method of urine collection in infants with better parental satisfaction and slightly higher contamination rate.","PeriodicalId":131440,"journal":{"name":"Nepal Mediciti Medical Journal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nepal Mediciti Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3126/nmmj.v2i2.41276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinary Tract infections [UTI] often presents with fever and nonspecific findings in infants less than one year. So urine sample collection is mandatory for diagnosis or exclusion. Collecting Urine sample is very challenging in infants and choosing the method of collection must balance the reliability, speed and contamination. Clinical guidelines have different recommendations so there is a need for reliable collection method. Therefore this study was conducted to determine if a simple stimulation method (Quick–wee Method) increases the rate of clean catch voiding of urine within five minutes.
METHODS: A prospective age and sex matched case control study in 1-12 months children conducted from June 2017 – June 2018 in Pediatric ward of Manipal college of medical sciences, Pokhara, after Ethical clearance from Institutional review Board [IRB]. The study population was randomized to either clean catch midstream urine with stimulation [Quick–Wee method] or without stimulation [Standard method]. The primary outcome was voiding of urine within 5 minute. Secondary outcome were waiting time for voiding, successful collection, parental satisfaction, and contamination. The analysis was done using SPSS version 20 and a ‘p’value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Waiting time for voiding in Quick wee group was less and statistically significant compared to standard group. There was 10% increment in voiding within 5 minutes in Quick wee group . It had higher successful urine collection rate (91.4%), slightly higher contamination rate (14.28%) but better parental satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS: Quick wee method is easy, reliable, successful method of urine collection in infants with better parental satisfaction and slightly higher contamination rate.
背景:尿路感染[UTI]通常表现为发烧和非特异性的发现在一岁以下的婴儿。因此,尿样采集是诊断或排除的必要条件。婴儿尿样采集是一项具有挑战性的工作,采集方法的选择必须在可靠性、速度和污染之间取得平衡。临床指南有不同的建议,因此需要可靠的收集方法。因此,本研究旨在确定一种简单的刺激方法(Quick-wee method)是否能提高5分钟内尿的干净排尿率。方法:经机构审查委员会(IRB)的伦理许可,于2017年6月至2018年6月在博卡拉马尼帕尔医学院儿科病房进行了一项年龄和性别匹配的1-12个月儿童的前瞻性病例对照研究。研究人群随机分为两组:有刺激的中游尿液(Quick-Wee法)和无刺激的中游尿液(Standard法)。主要终点为5分钟内排尿。次要结果为排尿等待时间、成功收集、家长满意度和污染。使用SPSS version 20进行分析,p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。结果:快速尿组等待排尿时间少于标准组,且差异有统计学意义。快尿组5分钟内排尿次数增加10%。收集成功率较高(91.4%),污染率略高(14.28%),但家长满意度较高。结论:快速尿法是一种简便、可靠、成功的婴儿尿液收集方法,家长满意度较高,污染率略高。