QuickChange Incontinence Wrap for urinary incontinence in men

Level of innovation

Two experts said that QuickChange Incontinence Wrap is an innovative and new technology because it is not a full-piece incontinence pad or an all-in-one design. Two experts said that it is a minor variation compared with the current standard of care. Three experts agreed that no other similar technologies are currently available to the NHS. One expert said that it may be feasible to use a simple Inco-pad in the same way, which is currently available and the cost negligible. However, this application has never been studied.

Potential patient impact

Two experts said that QuickChange Incontinence Wrap is easier to change than pull-up pants, for example. It can be done by fewer nurses and is less stressful for the patients. One expert also said that it will be kinder to the skin and is less invasive than other incontinence devices such as in-dwelling urethral catheters. Another expert noted a reduction in costs for patients. One expert said that it has the potential for patient benefits but that there are limited data to support this. One expert said that it has very little patient benefits.

One expert said that it has the potential to change the current pathway. For people who are immobile, long-term catheters in situ with risk of urinary tract infection are usually preferred over pads with risk of skin conditions. One expert said that it does not have the potential to change the current pathway. Another expert noted it is unlikely to change the current pathway and that there will still be a place for other incontinence products. One expert felt they could not comment because of the limited data.

Three experts agreed that the technology would benefit people with reduced mobility and who are unable to leave the bed. One expert stated that it would be for people in acute and community settings. Another expert said that it can also benefit nurses. One expert said that there are no groups of people who would particularly benefit from this technology.

Potential system impact

Two experts said that the incontinence wrap is easy to change and can reduce skin deterioration, both leading to reduced nursing time. One expert did not comment, and another expert said that it is currently unclear because of a lack of evidence.

Experts had a varied view on the cost of the technology compared with current standard of care. Two experts said that it costs more, with 1 expert saying that the technology is likely to need more frequent changes. One expert said it costs less. Another expert said that it is about the same, cheaper than some options and more expensive than others.

Two experts said that the resource impact would be a reduction in time spent on incontinence care by staff. One expert said that it may allow people to be placed in a less intensive care setting, because some nursing homes do not accept people with catheters. Also, there may be fewer catheter complications. One expert noted that it is unlikely to have a significant benefit.

Three experts agreed that training is needed to use the technology. Three experts were unaware of any safety issues. One expert said that there were minimal data to understand the safety issues.

General comments

All experts agreed that the QuickChange Incontinence Wrap would be in addition to current standard care. One expert suspected that only a small minority of men with incontinence can use the technology, stating that QuickChange appears to be suitable for men who are immobile with mild incontinence. Experts were unaware of any issues that would prevent the use of this technology in the NHS, apart from 1 expert stating cost was a potential barrier. One expert noted that it cannot be used in all people, for example, men with faecal incontinence, obesity or oedema. Experts raised several concerns including determining how suitable the technology is for the person, how the technology will be held in place, if it needs changing after each void, potential leakage and the potential for cost and time savings. All experts agreed that further research including randomised controlled trials is needed to address the uncertainties in the evidence base.