ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Inclusion of patient care technicians in hemodialysis patient care conferences: a pilot implementation study.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncluding patient care technicians (PCTs), who spend the most chairside time with patients receiving hemodialysis, in monthly interdisciplinary patient care conferences (PCCs) may provide the dialysis care team with valuable patient information and improve PCTs' sense of belonging on the team. We assessed the implementation of including PCTs in PCCs ("In-Tech").
methodsIn this pre-post pilot study, In-Tech was implemented at both clinics for 6 months (March-August 2025) by dialysis care team members (nephrologists, nurses, social workers, dietitians, PCTs) at two independent dialysis clinics. In pre- and post-intervention surveys of PCTs and other dialysis care team members, organizational readiness for, acceptability of, appropriateness of, and feasibility of In-Tech were measured via items from validated instruments, and the value of In-Tech was measured via ad hoc items.
resultsOf 21/37 (pre-/post-implementation) survey respondents, 33%/32% were > 50 years old, 57%/64% were women, 35%/41% were Asian, and 25%/35% were Pacific Islander. Most (> 80%) found In-Tech to be acceptable; organizational readiness (76-81% vs. 65-73%), appropriateness (81% vs.73%), and feasibility (81% vs. 70%) were higher in pre- vs. post-intervention surveys. PCTs were less likely than other care team members to express the value of PCTs attending PCCs (73-80% vs. 86-96%) and to report they were encouraged to share their thoughts (60% vs. 100%) or that their input was valued (60% vs. 100%) during PCCs. Open-ended responses emphasized the value of the patient-PCT relationship, difficulty scheduling PCCs to accommodate PCTs, the need for PCT guidance in their contributions to PCCs, and the desire to continue In-Tech beyond the pilot.
conclusionsWhile including PCTs in PCCs appears to be implementable and valuable to the care team, future studies should address implementation challenges and ensure that PCT input is explicitly valued by the care team. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.