Sensory Characterization of Odors in Used Disposable Absorbent Incontinence Products.
Heléne Widén, Susanne Alenljung, Ulla Forsgren-Brusk and 1 others
PMID 28328646WHAT IT FOUND
Used disposable incontinence products from residents had varied odors, not just ammonia.
Most were urinal or smoked, with a sweetish outlier. This describes product odor profiles, not evidence any product reduces odor or improves care.
Key findings
01Used products from 14 residents had total odor intensity that was intermediate to strong in most products and fairly weak in some.
02For 13 of 14 products, the strongest odor attribute was urinal or smoked, with urinal strongest in 7 products and smoked strongest in 6 products.
037 attributes (ammonia, urinal, smoked, sulfur, sourish, rotten hey, and fishy) could differentiate products, while sweetish, salmiak, and wet wool did not differ between products.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Products were collected only from residents who frequently had noticeable odor, so products with no or faint odor were not represented. No medication or diagnosis data were collected, so odor differences cannot be linked to those factors. The study measured odor only. It did not test leakage, skin integrity, comfort, distress, or care outcomes. Each used product sample was rated by only two judges, and no formal interrater reliability test was performed. The products came from a limited number of residents in one Swedish nursing home area.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that any product reduced odor, improved skin integrity, or changed patient comfort. The study described odor profiles of used products and did not test clinical outcomes.