Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 27 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Clinical and Health Economic Evaluation of a Novel Device for Fecal Management in Bedridden Patients

Harsh Sheth, Shilpa Rao, V Karthik

Keywords : Balloon catheter, Critical care, Dermatitis, Diarrhea, Fecal incontinence, Fecal management, FMS, Hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI), Incontinence-associated dermatitis, Pressure ulcer

Citation Information : Sheth H, Rao S, Karthik V. Clinical and Health Economic Evaluation of a Novel Device for Fecal Management in Bedridden Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023; 27 (10):759-765.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24544

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-09-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Purpose: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and health economic benefits of a novel indwelling lattice-based device for fecal management in bedridden patients. Materials and methods: This nonrandomized, two-arm study included 70 bedridden patients (≥18 years exhibiting liquid stool) referred from the ICU of surgery and medicine units of a 2000-bed tertiary care referral hospital, assigned to the intervention and control groups. About 35 patients were eligible to be included in the intervention group while 35 patients with contraindications to the intervention device were included in the usual care control group. Assessments were made before and every 24 hours during the study, and all patients were closely monitored for development of incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) and hospital-acquired pressure injury. Results: The test device was successfully deployed on the first attempt and effectively diverted fecal matter in all 35 patients, with no adverse events. In the control group, 83% of the patients developed IAD, which resulted in prolonged hospitalization and increased expenses. Overall, the control group (with adult diapers) required greater time, resources, and efforts for fecal management and resulted in increased patient morbidity. Conclusion: The patient management time, resource consumption, overall cost of hospital admission, and the complication rates are significantly lower with the use of the novel lattice-based device than with the use of adult diapers for fecal management.

  1. Spetz J, Brown DS, Aydin C, Donaldson N. The value of reducing hospital-acquired pressure ulcer prevalence. J Nurs Adm 2013;43(4):235–241. DOI: 10.1097/NNA.0b013e3182895a3c.
  2. Lyder CH, Wang Y, Metersky M, Curry M, Kliman R, Verzier NR, et al. Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: results from the national medicare patient safety monitoring system study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60(9):1603–1608. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04106.x.
  3. Padula WV, Makic MBF, Wald HL, Campbell JD, Nair KV, Mishra MK, et al. Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers at academic medical centers in the united states, 2008–2012: tracking changes since the cms nonpayment policy. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2015;41(6):257–263. DOI: 10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41035-9.
  4. Beitz JM. Fecal incontinence in acutely and critically ill patients: options in management. Ostomy Wound Manage 2006;52(12):56–58, 60, 62–66. PMID: 17204827.
  5. Keshava A, Renwick A, Stewart P, Pilley A. A nonsurgical means of fecal diversion: the Zassi bowel management system. Dis Colon Rectum 2007;50(7):1017–1022. DOI: 10.1007/s10350-006-0882-x.
  6. Padmanabhan A, Stern M, Wishin J, Mangino M, Richey K, DeSane M, et al. Clinical evaluation of a flexible fecal incontinence management system. Am J Crit Care 2007;16(4):384–393. PMID: 17595371.
  7. Benoit RA, Watts C. The effect of a pressure ulcer prevention program and the bowel management system in reducing pressure ulcer prevalence in an icu setting. J Wound, Ostomy Cont Nurs 2007;34(2):163–175. DOI: 10.1097/01.WON.0000264830.26355.64.
  8. Page BP, Boyce SA, Deans C, Camilleri-Brennan J. Significant rectal bleeding as a complication of a fecal collecting device: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 2008;51(9):1427–1429. DOI: 10.1007/s10350-008-9227-2.
  9. Bordes J, Goutorbe P, Asencio Y, Meaudre E, Dantzer E. A non-surgical device for faecal diversion in the management of perineal burns. Burn 2008;34(6):840–844. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2007.11.009.
  10. Sparks D, Chase D, Heaton B, Coughlin L, Metha J. Rectal trauma and associated hemorrhage with the use of the convatec flexi-seal fecal management system: Report of 3 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53(3):346–349. DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181c38351.
  11. Reynolds MG, van Haren F. A case of pressure ulceration and associated haemorrhage in a patient using a faecal management system. Aust Crit Care. 2012;25(3):188–194. DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2012.02.001.
  12. Shaker H, Maile EJ, Telford KJ. Complete circumferential rectal ulceration and haemorrhage secondary to the use of a faecal management system. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2014;7(1):51–55. DOI: 10.1177/1756283X13501947.
  13. Bright E, Fishwick G, Berry D, Thomas M. Indwelling bowel management system as a cause of life-threatening rectal bleeding. Case Rep Gastroenterol 2008;2(3):351–355. DOI: 10.1159/000155147.
  14. Whiteley I, Sinclair G, Lyons AM, Riccardi R. A retrospective review of outcomes using a fecal management system in acute care patients. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014;60(12):37–43. PMID: 25485551.
  15. Sammon MA, Montague M, Frame F, Guzman D, Bena JF, Palascak A, et al. Randomized controlled study of the effects of 2 fecal management systems on incidence of anal erosion. J Wound, Ostomy Cont Nurs 2015;42(3):279–286. DOI: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000128.
  16. Singh S, Bhargava B, Vasantha P, Bhatia R, Sharma H, Pal S, et al. Clinical evaluation of a novel intrarectal device for management of fecal incontinence in bedridden patients. J Wound, Ostomy Cont Nurs 2018;45(2):156–162. DOI: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000408.
  17. Borchert K, Bliss DZ, Savik K, Radosevich DM. The incontinence-associated dermatitis and its severity instrument. J Wound, Ostomy Cont Nurs 2010;37(5):527–535. DOI: 10.1097/WON.0b013e3181edac3e.
  18. Boltz M, A. Greenberg S, Terry Sullivan M. The Modified Caregiver Strain Index (CSI); 2018.
  19. Tadia VK, Gupta SK, Arya SK, Lathwal A, Jain K, Ahlawat R. Why switch to rental? Costing of laundry services at an apex tertiary care hospital from the view of outsourcing based on rental linen management services. Int J Res Found Hosp Heal Care Adm 2016;4:79–88. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10035-1064.
  20. Gadpayle A, Dangi H, Debopriya. Study of Unit Cost of Medical Intensive Care Unit at Tertiary Care Hospital in Government Set up in New Delhi. Kumar Gupta S, Kant S, eds. Int J Res Found Hosp Heal Care Adm 2014;2:10–14. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10035-1008.
  21. Chatterjee S, Levin C, Laxminarayan R. Unit Cost of Medical Services at Different Hospitals in India. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):69728. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069728.
  22. Kumar P, Jithesh V, Gupta SK. A comparative cost analysis of polytrauma and neurosurgery intensive care units at an apex trauma care facility in India. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2016;20(7):398–403. DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.186220.
  23. Maklebust J, Magnan MA. Risk factors associated with having a pressure ulcer: a secondary data analysis. Adv Wound Care. 1994;7(6):25, 27–28, 31–34 passim. PMID: 7795863.
  24. Keller P, Wille J, van Ramshorst B, van der Werken C. Pressure ulcers in intensive care patients: a review of risks and prevention. Intensive Care Med 2002;28(10):1379–1388. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-002-1487-z.
  25. Mehta C, George J V., Mehta Y, Wangmo N. Pressure ulcer and patient characteristics – A point prevalence study in a tertiary hospital of India based on the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel minimum data set. J Tissue Viability 2015;24(3):123–130. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2015.04.001.
  26. Marchetti F, Corallo JP, Ritter J, Sands LR. Retention cuff pressure study of 3 indwelling stool management systems. J Wound, Ostomy Cont Nurs 2011;38(5):569–573. DOI:10.1097/WON.0b013e31822ad43c.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.