• Irene V A Ho, Cheng Hiang Lee, and Margaret Fry.
• Emergency Department, Mona Vale Hospital, 1 Coronation Street, Mona Vale, NSW 2103, Australia. Electronic address: Irene.Ho@health.nsw.gov.au.
• Int Emerg Nurs. 2014 Apr 1; 22 (2): 94-7.

IntroductionThere are many different methods for collecting urine from paediatric patients in emergency departments. Therefore, the aims of the study were to:MethodsThe three month study was a prospective non-randomised comparative paediatric pilot study. A purposeful sample of children, requiring a urine microscopy for clinical management, presenting to one district emergency department was enrolled in the study to compare two non-invasive techniques of urine collection.ResultsThirty-three patients were enrolled and satisfactory samples were obtained from 22 patients. The heavy (mixed growth) contamination rate in the UCP group (n=2; 9.1%) versus the CCU group (n=1; 4.5%) was not statistically significant (p=0.50 by Fisher's exact test). The rate of agreement (n=20; 91%) in diagnosing or excluding urinary tract infection between the two groups was high. The median time to urine collection between the two groups (UCP method 30 min; CCU 107.5 min) was statistically significant (p<0.002, Mann-Whitney U test).ConclusionsThis study suggests that UCPs are practicable in Australasian Emergency Departments and may lead to faster diagnosis, disposition and reduced hospital stay.Crown Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

17 keywords...

hide…