Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Nephrol. Jun 25, 2025; 14(2): 104207
Published online Jun 25, 2025. doi: 10.5527/wjn.v14.i2.104207
Improving outcomes in foley catheterization: A retrospective review with a proposed protocol
Jordan Sarver, Remington Farley, Shane Daugherty, Jordan Bilbrew, Joshua Palka
Jordan Sarver, Remington Farley, Shane Daugherty, Jordan Bilbrew, Joshua Palka, Department of Urology, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI 48201, United States
Author contributions: Sarver J, Farley R, Daugherty S, Bilbrew J, and Palka J performed the research, contributed ideas, analyzed the date, and wrote the manuscript; Sarver J revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approve the final manuscript.
Institutional review board statement: The study was reviewed and approved by the Wayne State University Institutional Review Board (Approval No. IRB -22-4834).
Informed consent statement: Consent was not obtained but the presented data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.
Conflict-of-interest statement: No conflicts of interests are applicable for the authors involved in this study.
Data sharing statement: Technical appendix, statistical code, and dataset available from the corresponding author at j.sarver1011@gmail.com. Consent was not obtained but the presented data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.
Open Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Jordan Sarver, Department of Urology, Detroit Medical Center, Harper Professional Building 4160 John R St. Suite 1017, Detroit, MI 48201, United States. j.sarver1011@gmail.com
Received: December 13, 2024
Revised: March 14, 2025
Accepted: March 25, 2025
Published online: June 25, 2025
Processing time: 117 Days and 14.2 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND

Urologists are commonly consulted regarding difficult and traumatic urethral catheterizations. Complications surrounding Foley catheterizations represent a significant burden to the healthcare system.

AIM

To assess the demographic and patient characteristics surrounding urological consultation for difficult and traumatic Foley catheterizations at our institution across multiple hospitals.

METHODS

This is a single-institution, multi-hospital, 263 patient, retrospective chart review from Jan 2020–December 2023.

RESULTS

The majority of consultations (80.2%) did not require heroic measures by the urology service. A Foley catheter placement was determined not difficult in the majority 191 (72.6%) of patients. Sub-group analysis of “difficult by urology” vs “not difficult by urology”, showed a significant difference between those with zero attempts, one attempt, and greater than one attempts (P = 0.004). Those patients specifically with greater than one attempts were more likely to be seen as a difficult insertion by urology assessment (60.6%) compared to not difficult (38.6%). Likewise, those patients with a history of difficult urethral catheter (DUC)/traumatic urethral catheterization (TUC) (25.8%) were more likely to be difficult compared to those without a history of DUC/TUC (14.2%) (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

The study found that majority of consultations received did not require heroic measures by the urology service to place a catheter. Patients who had a history of DUC/TUC and those who had greater than one catheter attempts were statistically more likely to be a DUC based on urology assessment. At our institution we hope to propose a protocol in which nursing staff and non-urologic clinicians will utilize a troubleshooting checklist and an algorithm when difficult or traumatic urethral catheters are encountered in order to improve patient care and decrease healthcare costs. For example, this protocol would ideally address complications of multiple catheter attempts such as urethral trauma, development of urethral strictures, and infection risk. Additionally, future trainings and availability of additional resources will be provided and assessed with a goal of reducing healthcare cost surrounding these complications.

Keywords: Patient care; Education; Traumatic catheter; Difficult catheter; Foley catheter; Urology

Core Tip: We performed a single institution, retrospective review of 263 consultations for “difficult urethral catheter” or “traumatic urethral catheter”. The study found that of total consultations, 80.2% did not require heroic measures. A Foley catheter placement was determined not difficult in 73% of patients. Patients who had a history of difficult or traumatic catheter and those who had greater than one catheter attempts were statistically more likely to be a difficult urethral catheter. At our institution we hope to propose a protocol in which nursing staff will utilize a troubleshooting checklist and an algorithm when difficult urinary catheter or traumatic catheters are encountered to promote improved patient care.