By Maciej Witkos

Patient and caretaker satisfaction with the UniSUC external catheter system (DRAFT)

(DRAFT updated 10/07/24, Ongoing)

Abstract

Introduction:  The UniSUC external catheter system utilizes a reusable frame with disposable moisture wicking liners and low pressure suction to siphon urine from the patient as a non-invasive management system for urinary incontinence (UI).  This patient and caregiver survey was conducted to evaluate patient satisfaction with using UniSUC and to compare their satisfaction in relation to other external catheters and treatment modalities available. 

Materials and methods:  An invitation for an online survey was sent out to patients and caregivers who utilized UniSUC.  It was completed between May and September[AP1]  2024.  Questions included demographic and clinical characteristics.  Satisfaction and other aspects were scored on a 5-point Likert Scale.  Five indicating greatest satisfaction and 1 indicating no satisfaction.   Patient and caregiver responses for UniSUC and PureWick were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results:  Of the 50 patients and caregivers completing the questionnaire, over 80% of UniSuc users were Very Satisfied and Satisfied for General Satisfaction, Comfort, Time Savings, Improved Sleep, Ease of Set Up, Ease of Use, Improved Dignity, and UTI reduction.  The UniSUC system scored statistically higher in all categories expect[AP2]  night time frequency compared to PureWick for urinary incontinence. 

Discussion:  This study indicates that UniSUC is a viable and better option for patients who suffer from urinary incontinence.   Further studies to validate these results are needed.

Introduction

With the aging population, urinary incontinence is becoming a great healthcare burden.  Urinary incontinence (UI) is already the most common lower tract symptom affecting up to 50% of women (1-3).   It affects quality of life (4) and can lead to clinically significant morbidities such as urinary tract infections (UTIs) or urinary incontinence dermatitis.

Clinical interventions include surgery and medications; behavioral changes such as timed voiding and reduced oral intake; containment devices such as pads and external catheters.   However, these interventions do not work for everyone. (5, 6)  Most notable was the introduction of the Pure Wick device developed by Dr. Camille Newton. (5)  The UniSUC system developed by Mr. Alvin Pepito RN was designed to improve patient safety and satisfaction by providing an improved urine catchment area with a shapeable frame for various body types. 

              The purpose of this study was to measure caregiver and patient satisfaction with the UniSUC external catheter system in relation to other modalities tried by the patients and caregivers.  

Materials and methods

All patients and caregivers who used the UniSUC system in the home setting were recruited between May and October 2024.  An email invitation to voluntarily fill out an online survey was sent by the manufacturer.   Informed consent was obtained from survey participants, and they were offered 15% off one future purchase for taking the survey.  All responses were included in this cross-sectional study.  Only one online survey per patient / caregiver was allowed.  The questions were designed to assess the user experience and identify user issues or benefits. 

A copy of the survey can be found https://alpepllc.com/unisuc-customer-survey/ .  The first 6 questions asked for demographic and clinical information about the user, such as the age, sex, mobility level, usage period, duration of use and other devices utilized.  The following questions related to the patient’s satisfaction were asked on a 5-point scale in order to rate the following external catheters: UniSUC, Pure Wick, Condom Catheter, Prima Fit.   Questions about general satisfaction, comfort, dryness level, time savings, cost efficiency, sleep improvement, ease of set up, improve dignity, decrease in urine infections, number of bathroom trips, likelihood of continuing using UniSUC, and recommending UniSUC to friends.  A field was also included to allow the respondents to free text comments.

To evaluate the data, we utilized fundamental statistics such as frequencies and percentages, illustrating the results and aggregates.  We utilized the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

The survey was open to all verified customers.  Of the responses 40 (80%) were caregivers and 7 (14%) were patients.  The characteristics of the patients were as follows:  the most frequent age group was 80+ at 48%, there were 43 (86%) women, most of the user expressed limited mobility 33 (66%).  No data on ethnicity was collected.  Table 1 Demographic characteristics of survey respondents

The patient use characteristics showed that 26 (52%) day and night users, 18 (36%) of users have used an external catheter for 6+ month.  Table 2 – Patient use characteristics

Most of our patients used diapers and the PureWick external catheter prior to using the UniSUC external catheter.  No patients indicated using the PrimaFit and an insignificant number of patients reported using a condom catheter.  We did not inquire about diapers, as the comparison with diapers and the PureWick external catheter was previously explored (  Our study showed that 58% of patients expressed the highest level of satisfaction with the UniSUC system versus 14% for PureWick.  Comfort was rated at a 5 by 64% of the respondents for UniSUC and 17% for PureWick.  Table 3 – Patient satisfaction scores of device clinical characteristics utility scores

Dryness was rated 5 by 46% of the respondents for UniSUC and 14% for PureWick.  Time savings was rated as 5 by 68% of the respondents.  Improved sleep was rated a 5 by 62.5% of the respondents for UniSUC and 26.47% for PureWick.   Tabel 4 – Patient satisfaction scores of devices clinical characteristics

Cost Efficiency was rated a 5 by 44% of the respondents for UniSUC and 26.5% for PureWick.  Table 5 – Patient satisfaction scores about the device usability

Limitations

This study has a very small sample size and short period of use of UniSuc by the patients.  This is being addressed by continuing the study for 1 more year to improve duration and until a sample size of 200 is reached.  This is also a pilot user study and not a formal clinical evaluation in a health care setting.  However, it is similar to previous patient use evaluations (8)  Such questions as reduction of UTI is not clinically validated here.  However, previous studies of UTI reduction and improved skin integrity maintenance with an external catheter have been published. (9, 10)

Discussion

This study’s goal was to evaluate the experience of users with the UniSuc external catheter.   Previous studies have shown that external catheters are superior to diapers and other traditional modalities to treat urinary incontinence ( 6 K).  The UniSUC system scored statistically higher in all categories expect nighttime frequency compared to PureWick for urinary incontinence.   Most patients had limited mobility, which shows that UniSuc is a viable modality for both at home and facility care treatment of urinary incontinence.  More patients in facilities have limited mobility versus those who are treated at home.   Improved dryness, comfort, sleep, UTI reduction and fewer nighttime bathroom trips all aggregate to improve patients’ health.  These factors all contribute to an in improvement in health outcomes, from reduction in incontinence associated dermatitis, reduction of nighttime falls and reduction of UTIs.

Conclusion

Patient and caregivers using the UniSUC external catheter at home reported improved dignity, UTI reduction, and fewer nighttime bathroom trips.  Overall greater satisfaction was reported with UniSUC as compared to PureWick.   Further studies are indicated to verify UniSuc’s significant improvement in the treatment of urinary incontinence.

Table 1 – Demographic characteristics of survey respondents

Table 2 – Patient use characteristics

Table 3 – Patient satisfaction scores of device clinical characteristics utility scores

Tabel 4 – Patient satisfaction scores of devices clinical characteristics

Table 5 – Patient satisfaction scores about the device usability

Under revision/verification

1. Dooley Y, Kenton K, Cao G et al. Urinary incontinence ariate sue ole72/6568661 and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Urol 2008;179(2):656-661.
2. Markland AD, Richter HE, Fwu CW, Eggers P, Kusek JW. Prevalence and trends of urinary incontinence in adults in the United States, 2001 to 2008. J Urol 2011;186(2):589-593.
3. Daugirdas SP, Markossian T, Mueller ER, Durazo-Arvizu R, Cao G, Kramer H. Urinary incontinence and chronic conditions in the US population age 50 years and older. Int Urogynecol J 2020;31(5):1013-1020.
4. Agarwal A, Eryuzlu LN, Cartwright R et al. What is the most bothersome lower urinary tract symptom? Individual- and population-level perspectives for both men and women. Eur Urol 2014;65(6):1211-1217.
5. Rose G, Pyle-Eilola AL. The effect of urine collection with a novel external catheter device on common urine chemistry and urinalysis results. J Appl Lab Med 2021;6(6):1618-1622.
6. Sussman RD, Syan R, Brucker BM. Guideline of guidelines: urinary incontinence in women. BJU Int 2020;125(5):638-655.
7. Demaagd GA, Davenport TC. Management of urinary incontinence. P T 2012;37(6):345-361.
8. Khosla L, Sani JM, Chughtai B. Patient and caretaker satisfaction with the PureWick system. Can J Urol. 2022 Aug;29(4):11216-11223. PMID: 35969725.
9. Uhr A, Glick L, Barron S et al. How I Do It: PureWick female external catheter: a non-invasive urine management system for incontinent women. Can J Urol 2021;28(3):10669-10672.
10. Vanleerberghe P, De Witte N, Claes C, Schalock RL, Verté D. The quality of life of older people aging in place: a literature review. Qual Life Res 2017;26(11):2899-2907.