There’s a paper in the Archives from January which presents a ‘new’ way of collecting urine from little babies. (I say ‘new’ as it is startlingly similar to the method employed by the Matron at my first SHO appointment, back in the last millennium, but this version is scientifically tested.)

How should we, as clinical scientisty doctor types, respond to technical innovation?

A purist might to crack in with a demand for an RCT. A non-inferiority RCT, based on outcomes of contaminated urine specimens and containing a health economic analysis.

The DIY bodger approach may be to just get on and do it. After all, you can quote a paper to show it works.

It may be that you could combine with your colleagues and aim to undertake a change in practice and data evaluation (as part of a ‘Plan-Do-Study-Act’ approach). I’m guessing you’ll be wanting to see lower contamination rates, perhaps quicker collections and some sort of patient/parent satisfaction? See how it works, share the love, via this blog, as a crowdsourced prospective meta-analysis.

(I promise if we get 4 or more groups offering their time-to-wee, repeat urine or contamination rates I’ll do a forest plot.)

Archi.