Cargando…
Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey
BACKGROUND: Decisions around planned ultrafiltration volumes are the only part of the haemodialysis prescription decided upon at every session. Removing too much fluid or too little is associated with both acute symptoms and long-term outcomes. The degree to which patients engage with or influence d...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8138996/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34016069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12882-021-02399-7 |
_version_ | 1783695916927025152 |
---|---|
author | Keane, David Glyde, Megan Dasgupta, Indranil Gardiner, Claire Lindley, Elizabeth Mitra, Sandip Palmer, Nicholas Dye, Louise Wright, Mark Sutherland, Ed |
author_facet | Keane, David Glyde, Megan Dasgupta, Indranil Gardiner, Claire Lindley, Elizabeth Mitra, Sandip Palmer, Nicholas Dye, Louise Wright, Mark Sutherland, Ed |
author_sort | Keane, David |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Decisions around planned ultrafiltration volumes are the only part of the haemodialysis prescription decided upon at every session. Removing too much fluid or too little is associated with both acute symptoms and long-term outcomes. The degree to which patients engage with or influence decision-making is not clear. We explored patient perspectives of prescribing ultrafiltration volumes, their understanding of the process and engagement with it. METHODS: A questionnaire developed for this study was administered to 1077 patients across 10 UK Renal Units. Factor analysis reduced the dataset into factors representing common themes. Relationships between survey results and factors were investigated using regression models. ANCOVA was used to explore differences between Renal Units. RESULTS: Patients generally felt in control of their fluid management and that they were given the final say on planned ultrafiltration volumes. Around half of the respondents reported they take an active role in their treatment. However, respondents were largely unable to relate signs and symptoms to fluid management practice and a third said they would not report common signs and symptoms to clinicians. A fifth of patients reported not to know how ultrafiltration volumes were calculated. Patients responded positively to questions relating to healthcare staff, though with significant variation between units, highlighting differences in perception of care. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of formal acknowledgement in fluid management protocols, patients have significant involvement in decisions regarding fluid removal during dialysis. Furthermore, substantial gaps remain in patient knowledge and engagement. Formalizing the role of patients in these decisions, including patient education, may improve prescription and achievement of target weights. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-021-02399-7. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8138996 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81389962021-05-21 Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey Keane, David Glyde, Megan Dasgupta, Indranil Gardiner, Claire Lindley, Elizabeth Mitra, Sandip Palmer, Nicholas Dye, Louise Wright, Mark Sutherland, Ed BMC Nephrol Research BACKGROUND: Decisions around planned ultrafiltration volumes are the only part of the haemodialysis prescription decided upon at every session. Removing too much fluid or too little is associated with both acute symptoms and long-term outcomes. The degree to which patients engage with or influence decision-making is not clear. We explored patient perspectives of prescribing ultrafiltration volumes, their understanding of the process and engagement with it. METHODS: A questionnaire developed for this study was administered to 1077 patients across 10 UK Renal Units. Factor analysis reduced the dataset into factors representing common themes. Relationships between survey results and factors were investigated using regression models. ANCOVA was used to explore differences between Renal Units. RESULTS: Patients generally felt in control of their fluid management and that they were given the final say on planned ultrafiltration volumes. Around half of the respondents reported they take an active role in their treatment. However, respondents were largely unable to relate signs and symptoms to fluid management practice and a third said they would not report common signs and symptoms to clinicians. A fifth of patients reported not to know how ultrafiltration volumes were calculated. Patients responded positively to questions relating to healthcare staff, though with significant variation between units, highlighting differences in perception of care. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of formal acknowledgement in fluid management protocols, patients have significant involvement in decisions regarding fluid removal during dialysis. Furthermore, substantial gaps remain in patient knowledge and engagement. Formalizing the role of patients in these decisions, including patient education, may improve prescription and achievement of target weights. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-021-02399-7. BioMed Central 2021-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8138996/ /pubmed/34016069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12882-021-02399-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Keane, David Glyde, Megan Dasgupta, Indranil Gardiner, Claire Lindley, Elizabeth Mitra, Sandip Palmer, Nicholas Dye, Louise Wright, Mark Sutherland, Ed Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey |
title | Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey |
title_full | Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey |
title_fullStr | Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey |
title_short | Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey |
title_sort | patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8138996/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34016069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12882-021-02399-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT keanedavid patientperspectivesoftargetweightmanagementandultrafiltrationinhaemodialysisamulticentersurvey AT glydemegan patientperspectivesoftargetweightmanagementandultrafiltrationinhaemodialysisamulticentersurvey AT dasguptaindranil patientperspectivesoftargetweightmanagementandultrafiltrationinhaemodialysisamulticentersurvey AT gardinerclaire patientperspectivesoftargetweightmanagementandultrafiltrationinhaemodialysisamulticentersurvey AT lindleyelizabeth patientperspectivesoftargetweightmanagementandultrafiltrationinhaemodialysisamulticentersurvey AT mitrasandip patientperspectivesoftargetweightmanagementandultrafiltrationinhaemodialysisamulticentersurvey AT palmernicholas patientperspectivesoftargetweightmanagementandultrafiltrationinhaemodialysisamulticentersurvey AT dyelouise patientperspectivesoftargetweightmanagementandultrafiltrationinhaemodialysisamulticentersurvey AT wrightmark patientperspectivesoftargetweightmanagementandultrafiltrationinhaemodialysisamulticentersurvey AT sutherlanded patientperspectivesoftargetweightmanagementandultrafiltrationinhaemodialysisamulticentersurvey |