Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)

, Volume 184, Issue 2, pp 365–367 | Cite as

Attitudes among junior doctors towards improving the transurethral catheterisation process

  • N. F. DavisEmail author
  • R. O. C. Mooney
  • M. F. O’Brien
  • M. T. Walsh
Original Article



To evaluate the subjective opinions of junior doctors on their adequacy of training and confidence levels for performing transurethral catheterisation (TUC) and to investigate their subjective interest in a ‘safety mechanism’ that would eliminate the potential for urethral trauma during TUC.


An anonymous online survey was emailed to all interns that had a documented email address on the Royal College of Surgeons Ireland registry (2012–2013). The survey consisted of eight questions pertaining to TUC of male patients.


The survey was delivered to 252 email addresses and the response rate was 52 % (130/252). The vast majority (99 %; n = 128) of interns felt confident inserting a transurethral catheter independently and 73 % (n = 95) subjectively received appropriate training for catheterising male patients. The incidence of trauma after mistakenly inflating the catheter’s anchoring balloon in the urethra was 3 % (n = 4). The majority (90 %; n = 116) of respondents were interested in a safety mechanism for preventing urethral trauma and 71 % (n = 92) felt that a safety mechanism for urethral trauma prevention should be compulsory for all transurethral catheterisation among male patients.


Despite pre-emptive training programmes, it appears that iatrogenic urethral trauma secondary to TUC remains a persistent morbidity in healthcare settings. Designing a safer transurethral catheter may be necessary to eliminate the risk of unnecessary urethral trauma in patients.


Transurethral catheter Urethral catheter Urethral trauma Bioengineering Medical education Junior doctor 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Jain P, Parada JP, David A et al (1995) Overuse of the indwelling urinary tract catheter in hospitalized medical patients. Arch Intern Med 155(13):1425–1429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cornia PB, Amory JK, Fraser S (2003) Computer-based order entry decreases duration of indwelling urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients. Am J Med 114(5):404–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomas AZ, Giri SK, Meagher D et al (2009) Avoidable iatrogenic complications of urethral catheterization and inadequate intern training in a tertiary-care teaching hospital. BJU Int 104(8):1109–1112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu AK, Blaschko SD, Garcia M et al (2012) Safer urethral catheters: how study of catheter balloon pressure and force can guide design. BJU Int 109(7):1110–1114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kashefi C, Messer K, Barden R et al (2008) Incidence and prevention of iatrogenic urethral injuries. J Urol 179(6):2254–2257 (discussion 7–8)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sullivan JF, Forde JC, Thomas AZ, Creagh TA (2014) Avoidable iatrogenic complications of male urethral catheterisation and inadequate intern training: a 4-year follow-up post implementation of an intern training programme. Surgeon. S1479. doi:  10.1016/j.surge.2014.02.001

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. F. Davis
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. O. C. Mooney
    • 2
  • M. F. O’Brien
    • 1
  • M. T. Walsh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyCork University HospitalCorkIreland
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Biomedical Engineering and MSSI, Centre for Applied Biomedical Engineering ResearchUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations