The role of kidney registries in expediting large-scale collection of patient-reported outcome measures for people with chronic kidney disease

In this issue of Clinical Kidney Journal, Van der Willik et al. report findings from a pilot study where they introduced collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into routine kidney care in Dutch dialysis centres. It is comparable to a registry-led PROMs initiative in Sweden, published in Clinical Kidney Journal in 2020. Both studies reported low average PROMs response rates with substantial between-centre variation, and both identified suboptimal patient and staff engagement as a key barrier to implementing PROMs in routine care for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This suggests that national kidney registries could be well placed to facilitate large-scale collection of PROMs data, but that they may require additional guidance on how to do this successfully. In this editorial, we discuss the current state-of-play of PROMs collection by kidney registries and provide an overview of what is (un)known about the feasibility and effectiveness of PROMs in CKD and other conditions. We anticipate that the fast-growing evidence base on whether, and how, PROMs can be of value in CKD settings will expedite registry-based PROMs collection, which will ultimately lead to more valuable and person-centred services and to enhanced health and well-being of people with CKD

Upskilling health and care workers with augmented and virtual reality: protocol for a realist review to develop an evidence-informed programme theory.

From Europe PMC via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: ppub 2021-07-01, epub 2021-07-05Publication status: PublishedIntroductionAugmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) are increasingly used to upskill health and care providers, including in surgical, nursing and acute care settings. Many studies have used AR/VR to deliver training, providing mixed evidence on their effectiveness and limited evidence regarding contextual factors that influence effectiveness and implementation. This review will develop, test and refine an evidence-informed programme theory on what facilitates or constrains the implementation of AR or VR programmes in health and care settings and understand how, for whom and to what extent they 'work'.Methods and analysisThis realist review adheres to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) standards and will be conducted in three steps: theory elicitation, theory testing and theory refinement. First, a search will identify practitioner, academic and learning and technology adoption theories from databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO and Web of Science), practitioner journals, snowballing and grey literature. Information regarding contexts, mechanisms and outcomes will be extracted. A narrative synthesis will determine overlapping configurations and form an initial theory. Second, the theory will be tested using empirical evidence located from the above databases and identified from the first search. Quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and relevant information will be extracted into a coding sheet. Third, the extracted information will be compared with the initial programme theory, with differences helping to make refinements. Findings will be presented as a narrative summary, and the MMAT will determine our confidence in each configuration.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. This review will develop an evidence-informed programme theory. The results will inform and support AR/VR interventions from clinical educators, healthcare providers and software developers. Upskilling through AR/VR learning interventions may improve quality of care and promote evidence-based practice and continued learning. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed journal articles

Patients' perceptions of information and education for renal replacement therapy: an independent survey by the European Kidney Patients' Federation on information and support on renal replacement therapy.

BACKGROUND: Selection of an appropriate renal replacement modality is of utmost importance for patients with end stage renal disease. Previous studies showed provision of information to and free modality choice by patients to be suboptimal. Therefore, the European Kidney Patients' Federation (CEAPIR) explored European patients' perceptions regarding information, education and involvement on the modality selection process. METHODS: CEAPIR developed a survey, which was disseminated by the national kidney patient organisations in Europe. RESULTS: In total, 3867 patients from 36 countries completed the survey. Respondents were either on in-centre haemodialysis (53%) or had a functioning graft (38%) at the time of survey. The majority (78%) evaluated the general information about kidney disease and treatment as helpful, but 39% did not recall being told about alternative treatment options than their current one. Respondents were more often satisfied with information provided on in-centre haemodialysis (90%) and transplantation (87%) than with information provided on peritoneal dialysis (79%) or home haemodialysis (61%), and were more satisfied with information from health care professionals vs other sources such as social media. Most (75%) felt they had been involved in treatment selection, 29% perceived they had no free choice. Involvement in modality selection was associated with enhanced satisfaction with treatment (OR 3.13; 95% CI 2.72-3.60). Many respondents (64%) could not remember receiving education on how to manage their kidney disease in daily life. Perceptions on information seem to differ between countries. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney patients reported to be overall satisfied with the information they received on their disease and treatment, although information seemed mostly to have been focused on one modality. Patients involved in modality selection were more satisfied with their treatment. However, in the perception of the patients, the freedom to choose an alternative modality showed room for improvement

Diagnosis and treatment of hyponatremia : a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements

Background: Hyponatremia is a common electrolyte disorder. Multiple organizations have published guidance documents to assist clinicians in managing hyponatremia. We aimed to explore the scope, content, and consistency of these documents. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and websites of guideline organizations and professional societies to September 2014 without language restriction for Clinical Practice Guidelines (defined as any document providing guidance informed by systematic literature review) and Consensus Statements (any other guidance document) developed specifically to guide differential diagnosis or treatment of hyponatremia. Four reviewers appraised guideline quality using the 23-item AGREE II instrument, which rates reporting of the guidance development process across six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. Total scores were calculated as standardized averages by domain. Results: We found ten guidance documents; five clinical practice guidelines and five consensus statements. Overall, quality was mixed: two clinical practice guidelines attained an average score of > 50% for all of the domains, three rated the evidence in a systematic way and two graded strength of the recommendations. All five consensus statements received AGREE scores below 60% for each of the specific domains. The guidance documents varied widely in scope. All dealt with therapy and seven included recommendations on diagnosis, using serum osmolality to confirm hypotonic hyponatremia, and volume status, urinary sodium concentration, and urinary osmolality for further classification of the hyponatremia. They differed, however, in classification thresholds, what additional tests to consider, and when to initiate diagnostic work-up. Eight guidance documents advocated hypertonic NaCl in severely symptomatic, acute onset ( 48 h) or asymptomatic cases, recommended treatments were NaCl 0.9%, fluid restriction, and cause-specific therapy for hypovolemic, euvolemic, and hypervolemic hyponatremia, respectively. Eight guidance documents recommended limits for speed of increase of sodium concentration, but these varied between 8 and 12 mmol/L per 24 h. Inconsistencies also existed in the recommended dose of NaCl, its initial infusion speed, and which second line interventions to consider. Conclusions: Current guidance documents on the assessment and treatment of hyponatremia vary in methodological rigor and recommendations are not always consistent

Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment

GPRS, UMTS en medische apparatuur in het ziekenhui

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a smartphone-based manikin to support pain self-reporting

Introduction:Many people worldwide suffer from chronic pain. Improving our knowledge on chronic pain prevalence and management requires methods to collect pain self-reports in large populations. Smartphone-based tools could aid data collection by allowing people to use their own device, but the measurement properties of such tools are largely unknown.Objectives:To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a smartphone-based manikin to support pain self-reporting.Methods:We recruited people with fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and/or osteoarthritis and access to a smartphone and the internet. Data collection included the Global Pain Scale at baseline and follow-up, and 30 daily pain drawings completed on a 2-dimensional, gender-neutral manikin. After deriving participants' pain extent from their manikin drawings, we evaluated convergent and discriminative validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness and assessed findings against internationally agreed criteria for good measurement properties.Results:We recruited 131 people; 104 were included in the full sample, submitting 2185 unique pain drawings. Manikin-derived pain extent had excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.94), moderate convergent validity (ρ, 0.46), and an ability to distinguish fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis from rheumatoid arthritis (F statistics, 30.41 and 14.36, respectively; P &lt; 0.001). Responsiveness was poor (ρ, 0.2; P, 0.06) and did not meet the respective criterion for good measurement properties.Conclusion:Our findings suggest that smartphone-based manikins can be a reliable and valid method for pain self-reporting, but that further research is warranted to explore, enhance, and confirm the ability of such manikins to detect a change in pain over time.</p

Willingness to participate in a randomized trial comparing catheters to fistulas for vascular access in incident hemodialysis patients: an international survey of nephrologists

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines favor fistulas over catheters as vascular access. Yet, the observational literature comparing fistulas to catheters has important limitations and biases that may be difficult to overcome in the absence of randomization. However, it is not clear if physicians would be willing to participate in a clinical trial comparing fistulas to catheters. OBJECTIVES: We also sought to elicit participants' opinions on willingness to participate in a future trial regarding catheters and fistulas. DESIGN: We created a three-part survey consisting of 19 questions. We collected demographic information, respondents' knowledge of the vascular access literature, appropriateness of current guideline recommendations, and their willingness to participate in a future trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Participants include physicians and trainees who are involved in the care of end-stage renal disease patients requiring vascular access. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics of respondents according to geographic location. We used logistic regression to model willingness to participate in a future trial. METHODS: We surveyed nephrologists from Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand to assess their willingness to participate in a randomized trial comparing fistulas to catheters in incident hemodialysis patients. RESULTS: Our results show that in Canada, 86 % of respondents were willing to participate in a trial (32 % in all patients; 54 % only in patients at high risk of primary failure). In Europe and Australia/New Zealand, the willingness to participate in a trial that included all patients was lower (28 % in Europe; 25 % in Australia/New Zealand), as was a trial that included patients at high risk of primary failure (38 % in Europe; 39 % in Australia/New Zealand). Nephrologists who have been in practice for a few years, saw a larger volume of patients, or self-identified as experts in vascular access literature were more likely to participate in a trial. LIMITATIONS: Survey distribution was limited to vascular access experts in participating European countries and ultimately led to a discrepancy in numbers of European to non-European respondents overall. Canadian views are likely over-represented in the overall outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey results suggest that nephrologists believe there is equipoise surrounding the optimal vascular access strategy and that a randomized controlled study should be undertaken, but restricted to those individuals with a high risk of primary fistula failure

Nephrologists' perceptions regarding dialysis withdrawal and palliative care in Europe: lessons from a European Renal Best Practice survey

Background There is a variation in dialysis withdrawal rates, but reasons for this variation across European countries are largely unknown. We therefore surveyed nephrologists' perceptions of factors concerning dialysis withdrawal and palliative care and explored relationships between these perceptions and reports of whether withdrawal actually occurred in practice. Methods We developed a 33-item electronic survey, disseminated via an email blast to all European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) members. In our data analyses, we distinguished those respondents who reported occurrence from those reporting no dialysis withdrawal in their unit. With multilevel logistic regression, we investigated the association between respondents' characteristics and perceptions and whether they reported occurrence of dialysis withdrawal or not. Results Five hundred and twenty-eight nephrologists from 45 countries completed the questionnaire; 42% reported occurrence of withdrawal in their unit in the past year, and 56% perceived that stopping life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients was allowed. Few respondents reported presence in their unit of protocols on withdrawal decision making (7%) or palliative care (10%) or the common involvement of a geriatrician in withdrawal decisions (10%). The majority stated that palliative care had not been part of their core curriculum (74%) and that they had not recently attended continuous medical education sessions on this topic (73%). Respondents from Eastern and Southern Europe had a 42 and 40% lower probability, respectively, of reporting withdrawal compared with those from North European countries. Working in a public centre [odds ratio (OR), 2.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.36-4.25] and respondents' perception that stopping life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients was allowed (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.23-3.12), that withdrawal decisions were commonly shared between doctor and patient (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.26-3.08) and that palliative care was reimbursed (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.16-2.83) increased the odds of reporting occurrence of withdrawal. Conclusion Reports of dialysis withdrawal occurrence varied between European countries. Occurrence reports were more likely if respondents worked in a public centre, if stopping life-prolonging treatments was perceived as allowed, if withdrawal decisions were considered shared between doctors and patients and if reimbursement of palliative care was believed to be in place. There is room for improvement regarding protocols on withdrawal and palliative care processes and regarding nephrologists' training and education on end-of-life car

Implementing quality indicators in intensive care units: exploring barriers to and facilitators of behaviour change

<p/> <p>Background</p> <p>Quality indicators are increasingly used in healthcare but there are various barriers hindering their routine use. To promote the use of quality indicators, an exploration of the barriers to and facilitating factors for their implementation among healthcare professionals and managers of intensive care units (ICUs) is advocated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All intensivists, ICU nurses, and managers (n = 142) working at 54 Dutch ICUs who participated in training sessions to support future implementation of quality indicators completed a questionnaire on perceived barriers and facilitators. Three types of barriers related to knowledge, attitude, and behaviour were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Behaviour-related barriers such as time constraints were most prominent (Mean Score, MS = 3.21), followed by barriers related to knowledge and attitude (MS = 3.62; MS = 4.12, respectively). Type of profession, age, and type of hospital were related to knowledge and behaviour. The facilitating factor perceived as most important by intensivists was administrative support (MS = 4.3; p = 0.02); for nurses, it was education (MS = 4.0; p = 0.01), and for managers, it was receiving feedback (MS = 4.5; p = 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results demonstrate that healthcare professionals and managers are familiar with using quality indicators to improve care, and that they have positive attitudes towards the implementation of quality indicators. Despite these facts, it is necessary to lower the barriers related to behavioural factors. In addition, as the barriers and facilitating factors differ among professions, age groups, and settings, tailored strategies are needed to implement quality indicators in daily practice.</p