Table 4

Mean frequency of urinary incontinence (UI) loss by availability of quality systems

Quality systemsNo of teams with quality system(s)Unadjusted mean frequencyAdjusted estimated mean frequencyMean difference95% CI interval differencep Value*
Agency level
 A93.55 (0.23)3.57−0.01−0.3 to 0.20.91
 AB183.50 (0.31)3.510.05−0.2 to 0.30.63
 ACD73.46 (0.49)3.370.19−0.1 to 0.50.17
 BC13.313.340.21−0.4 to 0.80.49
 BCD293.59 (0.31)3.59−0.03−0.2 to 0.10.70
 C173.51 (0.26)3.510.05−0.1 to 0.20.60
 D23.28 (0.16)3.310.2−0.2 to 0.70.26
 None (reference)723.56 (0.30)3.56
Team level
 a63.64 (0.23)3.62−0.12−0.4 to 0.20.38
 ab43.53 (0.35)3.56−0.06−0.4 to 0.30.71
 ac483.55 (0.28)3.56−0.06−0.2 to 0.10.42
 abc113.60 (0.32)3.59−0.09−0.3 to 0.10.43
 acd13.863.89−0.38−1.0 to 0.20.22
 abcd93.41 (0.44)3.340.16−0.1 to 0.40.20
 b13.173.190.31−0.3 to 0.90.32
 bc43.57 (0.12)3.60−0.10−0.4 to 0.20.56
 c483.54 (0.28)3.54−0.04−0.2 to 0.10.58
 None (reference)233.50 (0.37)3.50
  • A, protocol on incontinence; B, updating of protocol; C, continence nurse; D, UI education; a, nurse with special UI focus; b, check as to whether UI protocol is used; c, documentation in patient record; d, UI brochure.

  • * When compared with teams (within home care agencies) without quality systems.

  • Adjusted for mobility (% bedridden): b=001, p=0.038.

  • Range 2–4.