Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the number of avoidable skin infections, pressure ulcers and urinary tract infections caused or aggravated by issuing to patients the cheapest absorbent continence products rather than products which are most clinically appropriate.

Continence is an important component in a person’s health and well-being at any stage of life, and is also an important factor in the use of health resources. Early assessment by an appropriately trained professional allows a patient centred and cost-effective care pathway to be followed. After assessment, the use of containment products, medication, and the level of intervention can be triaged and escalated.

An absorbent incontinence pad is the ‘most commonly used product for absorbing and containing both light and moderate/heavy leakage’, as per the Continence Product Advisor in 2017. An incontinence pad is classified as a medical device, as per the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in 2014, and therefore safety and fitness for purpose is fundamental in achieving quality care. The clinician who assesses an individual to provide an absorbent product is accountable for that decision, and needs to ensure that the chosen product is fit for purpose and safe to use at the time of assessment, in accordance with the MHRA.

No current assessment has been made in determining the difference between the brands of continence pads in relation to additional or avoidable treatments being required, laundry and other associated costs, including energy, or staff time spent changing patients.