Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Clinical Intelligence

Urine sample collection from young pre-continent children: common methods and the new Quick-Wee technique

Jonathan Kaufman, Meredith Temple-Smith and Lena Sanci
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (690): 42-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X707705
Jonathan Kaufman
Sunshine Hospital, Melbourne.
Roles: General paediatrician
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Meredith Temple-Smith
Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Roles: Professor and deputy head
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lena Sanci
Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Roles: Professor and head
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

BACKGROUND

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common bacterial infections of early childhood. However, as signs and symptoms are frequently non-specific in young children, a urine sample is required to diagnose or exclude UTI. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend that children with unexplained fever or signs suggestive of UTI should have a urine sample collected.1

Collecting urine from pre-continent children is challenging. Collection methods all have limitations. The choice of sample collection method must balance time, resources, contamination, invasiveness, and clinician and carer preferences. Despite being so commonly required for young children, there is significant variation in international guideline recommendations for the optimal method. NICE recommends the clean catch method, other non-invasive methods such as pads if clean catch is not possible, and catheter or suprapubic aspirate (SPA) if non-invasive methods are not possible.1

Sample contamination occurs when urine flushing over the perigenital skin collects incidental skin flora, or from inadvertent contact between skin and specimen jar. Contamination corrupts the test result. Precise contamination rates for each method of urine collection may be difficult to compare as definitions of contamination vary between centres and studies. However, perigenital skin cleaning before collection and care with collection technique may help to minimise contamination.

Suboptimal sample collection is detrimental to patient care. A lack of timely, accurate sampling may delay effective treatment. Missed sample collection increases the likelihood of both missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis, which may in turn increase inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance. Optimising sample collection has many benefits.

We present an overview of common urine sample collection methods used for young pre-continent children that can be considered for use in primary care (Figure 1 and Table 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Common urine sample collection methods. Images © Dr Jonathan Kaufman and Bill Reid, Royal Children’s Hospital.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Advantages and limitations of common methods

NON-INVASIVE COLLECTION METHODS

Non-invasive collection methods involve waiting for the child to void spontaneously and then collecting urine with a urine bag, pad, or clean catch of the urine stream. These methods seem convenient, but can be time consuming, unsuccessful, or contaminated. Newer voiding stimulation techniques may improve the speed and success of non-invasive collection.

Nappy pads and cotton wool balls

Nappy urine collection pads are placed inside the nappy until the child voids. Urine can then be extracted from the wet pad with a syringe. Frequent checking is required to avoid faecal soiling. Nappy pads have the highest contamination of all urine collection methods,2 reported at >60% in some primary care settings.3 Continuous contact between pad and perineum makes avoiding contamination difficult, even with meticulous care. Cotton wool balls placed in the nappy are sometimes used in a similar fashion, but are specifically discouraged by NICE guidance.1

Urine bags

Urine collection bags are attached with gentle adhesive over the child’s genitalia. They are placed inside the nappy, or the nappy can be slit to visualise the bag. While seemingly convenient, bags can leak or detach, so care with collection is still required. Discomfort and skin irritation with bag removal may occur, but is usually minor. Urine collected in bags is also highly susceptible to contamination. A meta-analysis of 21 studies (7659 samples) found 47% contamination and 61% false positives with urine bags.4

Clean catch

The clean catch method for pre-continent young children replicates the midstream technique used in continent older children and adults. The nappy is removed, and a clinician or carer waits with a specimen jar, ready to opportunistically catch a sample when the child voids. Vigilance and quick reflexes are required. This can sometimes be difficult and time consuming, and not all attempts are successful. Clean catch has the lowest contamination of non-invasive methods for pre-continent children, at around 25%.5

Voiding stimulation techniques

Voiding stimulation techniques trigger involuntary newborn voiding reflexes, to facilitate faster clean catch urine collection. Bladder–lumbar stimulation involves suspending the infant under the armpits and applying alternating bladder tapping and lumbar massage.6 Success is high in newborns, but three operators are required and it may be less practical in older infants. The Quick-Wee method uses cold fluid-soaked gauze to gently rub the suprapubic area.7 The method is simple, gentle, and can be performed by a single operator, being the doctor, nurse, or parent. Thirty per cent of children <1 year old had a sample collected within 5 minutes in a large randomised trial.7 If not successful, waiting for a clean catch should be continued and optimising hydration or trying stimulation again later considered.

INVASIVE COLLECTION METHODS

Invasive collection methods involve urethral catheterisation or suprapubic needle aspiration to sample urine directly from the bladder. These methods can be more reliable, but require equipment and expertise to perform, and cause pain to the child and distress to parents.

Catheterisation

Catheterisation involves inserting and removing a catheter or feeding tube into the bladder via the urethra. This can be effective even with scant urine in the bladder, and has low contamination of around 10%.5

Suprapubic aspiration

SPA uses a needle and syringe to sample urine through the abdomen and bladder wall. Success is higher with a full bladder, preferably confirmed with ultrasound, or suggested by an absence of recent voiding. SPA contamination is around 1%, the lowest of all collection methods.5

DISCUSSION

Pads and bags are often favoured collection methods in primary care and seem convenient, particularly for parents collecting samples at home. High contamination and false positive rates, however, limit their diagnostic utility. Pad and bag urine samples therefore may be useful for dipstick screening or to exclude UTI if culture results are negative, but positive results must be interpreted with caution. Positive screening should be confirmed with a more reliable sample if possible.

Catheter and SPA procedures are invasive and more commonly performed in the hospital setting, but have lower contamination than other methods. These methods may also be useful in geographically isolated primary care settings.

Clean catch is recommended by NICE and has the lowest contamination of non-invasive methods. Motivation and attention is required for a successful catch, so parental engagement is crucial. Voiding stimulation techniques such as the Quick-Wee method are simple and can increase success. We have created a parent education handout to assist with clean catch collection at home, which may be helpful for clinicians (see Supplementary Figure 1).

Notes

Provenance

Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received May 13, 2019.
  • Revision requested June 7, 2019.
  • Accepted June 14, 2019.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2020

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2007) Urinary tract infection in under 16s: diagnosis and management CG54 (NICE, London) https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg54 (accessed 27 Nov 2019).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Butler CC,
    2. Sterne JAC,
    3. Lawton M,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Br J Gen Pract, Nappy pad urine samples for investigation and treatment of UTI in young children: the ‘DUTY’ prospective diagnostic cohort study. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X685873.
  3. 3.↵
    1. O’Brien K,
    2. Edwards A,
    3. Hood K,
    4. Butler CC
    (2013) Br J Gen Pract, Prevalence of urinary tract infection in acutely unwell children in general practice: a prospective study with systematic urine sampling. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X66327.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ochoa Sangrador C,
    2. Pascual Terrazas A
    (2016) [Systematic review of the validity of urine cultures collected by sterile perineal bags]. [Article in Spanish]. An Pediatr (Barc) 84(2):97–105, doi:10.1016/j.anpedi.2015.04.003, Epub 2015 May 23.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    1. Tosif S,
    2. Baker A,
    3. Oakley E,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Contamination rates of different urine collection methods for the diagnosis of urinary tract infections in young children: an observational cohort study. J Paediatr Child Health 48(8):659–664, doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2012.02449.x, Epub 2012 Apr 27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Herreros Fernández ML,
    2. González Merino N,
    3. Tagarro García A,
    4. et al.
    (2013) A new technique for fast and safe collection of urine in newborns. Arch Dis Child 98(1):27–29, doi:10.1136/archdischild-2012-301872, Epub 2012 Nov 21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Kaufman J,
    2. Fitzpatrick P,
    3. Tosif S,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Faster clean catch urine collection (Quick-Wee method) from infants: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 357:j1341, doi:10.1136/bmj.j1341.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 70 (690)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 70, Issue 690
January 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Urine sample collection from young pre-continent children: common methods and the new Quick-Wee technique
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Urine sample collection from young pre-continent children: common methods and the new Quick-Wee technique
Jonathan Kaufman, Meredith Temple-Smith, Lena Sanci
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (690): 42-43. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X707705

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Urine sample collection from young pre-continent children: common methods and the new Quick-Wee technique
Jonathan Kaufman, Meredith Temple-Smith, Lena Sanci
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (690): 42-43. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X707705
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • BACKGROUND
    • NON-INVASIVE COLLECTION METHODS
    • INVASIVE COLLECTION METHODS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • COVID-19 with abdominal symptoms and acute abdominal pain: a guide to identification for general practice
  • How to manage low testosterone level in men: a guide for primary care
  • Hyperparathyroidism (primary) NICE guideline: diagnosis, assessment, and initial management
Show more Clinical Intelligence

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242