Dyspnoea survery in the Emergency Department HUSM 2014

• Main Author: Kee, Gan Kiat
• Format: Thesis
• Language: English
• Published: 2017
• Subjects: RC705-779 Diseases of the respiratory system
• Online Access: http://eprints.usm.my/44978/1/Dr.%20Gan%20Kian%20Kee-24%20pages.pdf; http://eprints.usm.my/44978/

Introduction Urine collection in neonates (babies less than 28 days) is an important screening tool for prolonged jaundice. Urinary tract infection is a known cause of prolonged jaundice in neonates. Urine investigation is also indicated in febrile neonates with urinary tract infection as well as those with no apparent cause. Urinary tract infection in babies may be correlated with underlying congenital urinary tract abnormality. If urinary tract abnormality is diagnosed early, it will help to prevent renal scarring. In neonates, urine collection is very difficult and at present, no data is available as the best and fastest method to collect urine. Objective To investigate the usefulness of bladder stimulation versus conventional technique (clean catch midstream urine) to collect urine in neonates in NICU, SCN and Paediatric Clinic at Hospital USM, Kubang Kerian Methods A total 120 babies less than 28 days old were randomized into bladder stimulation group and control group. The specific objective was to compare the successful rate of urine collection between bladder stimulation and conventional technique of urine collection in neonates. The XI success is defined as the collection of a sample within 300 seconds (5 minutes) ofstimulation manouvres (Maria 2012). As for the subsidiary objectives were, to compare the adverse events between the two groups and to compare mean time taken to collect urine between the two groups Result A total 120 babies were included in the study. These babies were randomized to the intervention and control group. Fifty four babies were put in the intervention group and 56 in the control group. The result was considered statistically significant when compared between the success rate in collecting urine in the intervention group, compared to the control group. However we could not analyse intention to treat analyses as there did not pass urine during the manouvres were done. Conclusion The successful rate in urine collection is higher in the intervention group as compared to the control group. However, the rate of refusal by parents need to be addressed further.