Aims and objectives: To gain an in-depth understanding of patients' preferences regarding two bed bath methods: soap and water and disposable wet wipes.
Background: Bed baths allow hospitalised, bedridden patients to stay clean and fresh. They serve a number of purposes: health promotion, social propriety and pure pleasure. Traditionally, soap and water have been used for personal hygiene, but in recent years soap and water have increasingly been replaced by the use of disposable wet wipes.
Design: A qualitative study with a hermeneutical-phenomenological approach was chosen to explore and understand patients' experiences of bed bath methods.
Methods: Semi-structured, individual, in-depth interviews with 16 bedridden patients from three wards were conducted. The software program nvivo was used to structure the transcribed interviews and assist in the initial data analysis. The data were analysed and interpreted within a phenomenological-hermeneutical framework. COREQ guidelines were used in the preparation of this paper (See Supporting information Appendix S1).
Results: Four overall themes were identified: "Creating a sense of cleanliness," "Preferences and concerns in different situations," "Cleanliness of hands and face" and "Clinical decision-making about bed bath method."
Conclusions: Overall, patients' bed bath preference was for soap and water, but disposable wet wipes were considered a convenient alternative and preferred in certain circumstances, for example, when a patient had pain or diarrhoea. Shared decision-making regarding bed bath method is recommended. Hands and face had specific requirements.
Relevance to clinical practice: Nursing staff should be aware that bedridden patients have varying preferences, and it is important to incorporate the patients' preferences in the development of standards, health policies and clinical guidelines for bed bath practices.
Keywords: bedridden; disposable wipes; hermeneutic; patient experience; personal hygiene; phenomenology; qualitative interviews.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Nøddeskou LH, Hemmingsen LE, Hørdam B. Nøddeskou LH, et al. Scand J Caring Sci. 2015 Jun;29(2):347-52. doi: 10.1111/scs.12170. Epub 2014 Sep 6. Scand J Caring Sci. 2015. PMID: 25196742 Clinical Trial.
Groven FMV, Zwakhalen SMG, Odekerken-Schröder G, Tan F, Hamers JPH. Groven FMV, et al. J Clin Nurs. 2021 Aug;30(15-16):2234-2245. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15610. Epub 2021 May 6. J Clin Nurs. 2021. PMID: 33352004 Free PMC article. Review.
Tai CH, Hsieh TC, Lee RP. Tai CH, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 19;18(2):816. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020816. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. PMID: 33477909 Free PMC article.
Coyer FM, O'Sullivan J, Cadman N. Coyer FM, et al. Aust Crit Care. 2011 Aug;24(3):198-209. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2010.08.001. Epub 2010 Sep 15. Aust Crit Care. 2011. PMID: 20829060
Groven FM, Zwakhalen SM, Odekerken-Schröder G, Joosten EJ, Hamers JP. Groven FM, et al. BMC Geriatr. 2017 Jan 25;17(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0425-4. BMC Geriatr. 2017. PMID: 28118815 Free PMC article. Review.
Pérez-Ortega S, Vallés EQ, Barrera JP, Venturas Nieto M, Zabalegui A. Pérez-Ortega S, et al. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2023 Nov 3;31:e4031. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.6808.4031. eCollection 2023. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2023. PMID: 37937595 Free PMC article.
Weinbren M, Inkster T, Walker J. Weinbren M, et al. J Infect Prev. 2023 Mar;24(2):65-70. doi: 10.1177/17571774231152715. Epub 2023 Jan 17. J Infect Prev. 2023. PMID: 36815058 Free PMC article.
Konya I, Nishiya K, Shishido I, Hino M, Watanabe K, Yano R. Konya I, et al. BMC Nurs. 2023 Jan 16;22(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12912-022-01162-z. BMC Nurs. 2023. PMID: 36647109 Free PMC article.
Rosendal KA, Lehn S, Overgaard D. Rosendal KA, et al. Nurs Inq. 2023 Jan;30(1):e12503. doi: 10.1111/nin.12503. Epub 2022 Jun 6. Nurs Inq. 2023. PMID: 35666581 Free PMC article. Review.
Konya I, Nishiya K, Yano R. Konya I, et al. Nurs Open. 2021 Sep;8(5):2284-2300. doi: 10.1002/nop2.836. Epub 2021 Mar 16. Nurs Open. 2021. PMID: 33724709 Free PMC article. Review.