Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34280249›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Renal staffs' understanding of patients' experiences of transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis and their views on service improvement: A multi-site qualitative study in England and Australia.

Janet E Jones, Sarah L Damery, Kerry Allen, David W Johnson, Mark Lambie, Els Holvoet, Simon J Davies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Sulodexide Prevents Peritoneal Fibrosis by Downregulating the Expression of TGF-Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Janet E JonesInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9057-6956
Sarah L DameryInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3681-8608
Kerry AllenHealth Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
David W JohnsonDepartment of Nephrology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5491-3460
Mark LambieFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6285-5368
Els HolvoetRenal Division, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Simon J DaviesFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany studies have explored patients' experiences of dialysis and other treatments for kidney failure. This is the first qualitative multi-site international study of how staff perceive the process of a patient's transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis. Current literature suggests that transitions are poorly coordinated and may result in increased patient morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to understand staff perspectives of transition and to identify areas where clinical practice could be improved.

methodsSixty-one participants (24 UK and 37 Australia), representing a cross-section of kidney care staff, took part in seven focus groups and sixteen interviews. Data were analysed inductively and findings were synthesised across the two countries.

resultsFor staff, good clinical practice included: effective communication with patients, well planned care pathways and continuity of care. However, staff felt that how they communicated with patients about the treatment journey could be improved. Staff worried they inadvertently made patients fear haemodialysis when trying to explain to them why going onto peritoneal dialysis first is a good option. Despite staff efforts to make transitions smooth, good continuity of care between modalities was only reported in some of the Australian hospitals where, unlike the UK, patients kept the same consultant. Timely access to an appropriate service, such as a psychologist or social worker, was not always available when staff felt it would be beneficial for the patient. Staff were aware of a disparity in access to kidney care and other healthcare professional services between some patient groups, especially those living in remote areas. This was often put down to the lack of funding and capacity within each hospital.

conclusionsThis research found that continuity of care between modalities was valued by staff but did not always happen. It also highlighted a number of areas for consideration when developing ways to improve care and provide appropriate support to patients as they transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis.

Indexed as

AdultAustraliaEnglandFearHealth PersonnelHealth Services AccessibilityHospitalsHumansKidneyKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMiddle AgedNursesPeritoneal DialysisPsychologyQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID34280249
PMCPMC8289060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.