Abstract: Poster Presentations |

Initial Experience With a New System for the Control and Containment of Fecal Output for the Protection of Patients In a Large Burn Center FREE TO VIEW

Jane L. Echols, RN; Bruce C. Friedman, MD*; Robert F. Mullins, MD; Joseph M. Still, MD
Author and Funding Information

Research Consortium, Inc, Doctors Hospital, Augusta, GA


Chest. 2004;126(4_MeetingAbstracts):862S. doi:10.1378/chest.126.4_MeetingAbstracts.862S-a
Text Size: A A A
Published online


PURPOSE:  The ability to contain and divert stool or GI waste in the burn population has certainly been a challenge. The control and containment of fecal output has proven not only to be challenging, but costly with respect to utilization of supplies and staff. These patients are at risk for skin and wound contamination with breakdown and are repeatedly exposed to an environment that may be contaminated with pathogens from the fecal stream. After several attempts to control soilage and protect patients using products either poorly designed or off-label, our burn center was forced to use more conventional methods of stool management, such as rectal bags, chux pads, expensive burn pads, and/or multiple bed/dressing changes. These measures provided inadequate protection from frequent stool contact with the patient.

METHODS:  Patients with severe burns involving perineal/rectal area, loss of bowel control, pre-grafting(burns or wounds), immobility related to condition/sedation, patients threatening need for colostomy had a Zassi Bowel Management System inserted. Data regarding infection, patient/staff satisfaction, safety, and cost effectiveness were evaluated.

RESULTS:  297 patients with the BMS and 208 patients without the BMS were evaluated. Infection from enteric pathogens were dramatically decreased in urine, blood, and skin and soft issue in the patients with the Zassi BMS. No complications noted, 140 catheters used, great staff/patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION:  Zassi BMS has proven to be a safe and effective catheter to contain/divert stool. Staff satisfaction with BMS catheter: time as well as cost savings. No patient related complications. Decrease in infection rates: UTI’s, Skin and soft tissue, and blood stream.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:  As a large burn center,with over 900 admissions per year, the BMS has proven advantages for our patient population. Some noted advantages include, improved patient comfort as well as dignity, improved skin care/prevention ofbreakdown, cost savings related to supplies and human resources, and decreased rate of infections related to foley, central line, or wound contamination.

DISCLOSURE:  B.C. Friedman, None.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

12:30 PM- 2:00 PM




Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543