Multiple evidence-based guidelines have suggested clinicians consider external collection devices (ECD) as alternatives to indwelling catheters. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of evidence-based resources concerning their use. An expert consensus panel was convened to review the current state of the evidence, indications for ECDs as an alternative to an indwelling urinary catheter, identify knowledge gaps, and areas for future research. This article presents the results of the expert consensus panel meeting and a systematic literature review regarding ECD use in the clinical setting.
Mikel Gray, PhD, FNP, PNP, CUNP, CCCN, FAANP, FAAN, Department of Urology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Claudia Skinner, DNP, RN, CCRN, CNML, NE-BC, St. Joseph's Health, Irvine, California.
Wendy Kaler, MPH, Center of Excellence, Dignity Health, San Francisco, California.
Correspondence: Mikel Gray, PhD, FNP, PNP, CUNP, CCCN, FAANP, FAAN, Department of Urology, University of Virginia, PO Box 800422, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (email@example.com).
Eloquest Healthcare granted funds for the facilitation of the APIC consensus round table, and the medical writing and editorial development of this document provided by MedBio Publications LLC. The consensus round was moderated by Dr Ahnal Purohit. The authors maintained total editorial control throughout manuscript development.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.