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
Many 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 litera...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2021-07, Vol.16 (7), p.e0254931-e0254931 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0254931 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | e0254931 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 16 |
creator | Jones, Janet E Damery, Sarah L Allen, Kerry Johnson, David W Lambie, Mark Holvoet, Els Davies, Simon J |
description | Many 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. Sixty-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. For 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. This 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0254931 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2553219127</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A669020707</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ae44bd5fd2ad489fb9b905cccbc18c87</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A669020707</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-b174e66da803406f1284a0081977dc76eaf21688b66f64f45bb8d5003554ad193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk81u1DAQxyMEoqXwBkhYQkJw2MVxEifhgLSqCqxUqVL5uFqOPd51lcRb21m6N16DV-PIkzDZXaou6gFFUWzPb_4znswkyfOUTtOsTN9eucH3sp2uXA9Tyoq8ztIHyXFaZ2zCGc0e3lkfJU9CuKK0yCrOHydHWc4qyvL6OPl1CShCQpTGhN8_fpKh1-Bx22vbL4gzZCWjhT5ujXCzAo87BWE0RS_7YKN1PTHedWQ0RkwHBbWV7SbYQKIjtp8oVPBAlhI6d2vCGCQuwXqytvAdFXsSwK-tAmK7lXdr6NDtHZmRbmijnWAoINeDbG3EnNaAWQ96g_LkrF-0o9r4zoaAebVWPk0eGdkGeLb_niRfP5x9Of00Ob_4OD-dnU8U53WcNGmZA-daVjTLKTcpq3JJaZXWZalVyUEalvKqajg3PDd50TSVLijNiiKXGkt8krzY6a5aF8T-twTBiiJjaZ2yEon5jtBOXomVt530G-GkFdsD5xdC-mhVC0JCnje6MJpJnVe1aeqmpoVSqlFppapR6_0-2tB0oLeFle2B6KGlt0uxcGtRsaqmnKLA672Ad9cDhCg6GxS0WEBwwy7vgmWMc0Rf_oPef7s9tZB4Adsbh3HVKCpmWGHKaElHanoPhY-GzipsGmPx_MDhzYEDMhFu4kIOIYj558v_Zy--HbKv7rBLbNa4DK4dxjYOh2C-A5V3IXgwt0VOqRhH8G81xDiCYj-C2R9Ulynb</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2553219127</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>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</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Jones, Janet E ; Damery, Sarah L ; Allen, Kerry ; Johnson, David W ; Lambie, Mark ; Holvoet, Els ; Davies, Simon J</creator><contributor>Selman, Lucy E.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Jones, Janet E ; Damery, Sarah L ; Allen, Kerry ; Johnson, David W ; Lambie, Mark ; Holvoet, Els ; Davies, Simon J ; Selman, Lucy E.</creatorcontrib><description>Many 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. Sixty-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. For 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. This 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254931</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34280249</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Biology and Life Sciences ; Clinical medicine ; Complications and side effects ; Continuity ; Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis ; Data analysis ; Data collection ; Dialysis ; Evaluation ; Focus groups ; Health sciences ; Health services administration ; Hemodialysis ; Hospitals ; International studies ; Interviews ; Kidneys ; Medical personnel ; Medical research ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Morbidity ; Patient outcomes ; Patient satisfaction ; Patients ; People and Places ; Peritoneal dialysis ; Peritoneum ; Professional ethics ; Qualitative research ; Renal failure ; Researchers ; Services ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-07, Vol.16 (7), p.e0254931-e0254931</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Jones et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Jones et al 2021 Jones et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-b174e66da803406f1284a0081977dc76eaf21688b66f64f45bb8d5003554ad193</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-b174e66da803406f1284a0081977dc76eaf21688b66f64f45bb8d5003554ad193</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9057-6956 ; 0000-0002-6285-5368 ; 0000-0003-3681-8608 ; 0000-0001-5491-3460</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8289060/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8289060/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2100,2926,23865,27923,27924,53790,53792,79371,79372</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Selman, Lucy E.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Jones, Janet E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Damery, Sarah L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, Kerry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, David W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lambie, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holvoet, Els</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davies, Simon J</creatorcontrib><title>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</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Many 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. Sixty-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. For 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. This 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.</description><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Complications and side effects</subject><subject>Continuity</subject><subject>Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Dialysis</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Focus groups</subject><subject>Health sciences</subject><subject>Health services administration</subject><subject>Hemodialysis</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>International studies</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Kidneys</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Peritoneal dialysis</subject><subject>Peritoneum</subject><subject>Professional ethics</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Renal failure</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Services</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk81u1DAQxyMEoqXwBkhYQkJw2MVxEifhgLSqCqxUqVL5uFqOPd51lcRb21m6N16DV-PIkzDZXaou6gFFUWzPb_4znswkyfOUTtOsTN9eucH3sp2uXA9Tyoq8ztIHyXFaZ2zCGc0e3lkfJU9CuKK0yCrOHydHWc4qyvL6OPl1CShCQpTGhN8_fpKh1-Bx22vbL4gzZCWjhT5ujXCzAo87BWE0RS_7YKN1PTHedWQ0RkwHBbWV7SbYQKIjtp8oVPBAlhI6d2vCGCQuwXqytvAdFXsSwK-tAmK7lXdr6NDtHZmRbmijnWAoINeDbG3EnNaAWQ96g_LkrF-0o9r4zoaAebVWPk0eGdkGeLb_niRfP5x9Of00Ob_4OD-dnU8U53WcNGmZA-daVjTLKTcpq3JJaZXWZalVyUEalvKqajg3PDd50TSVLijNiiKXGkt8krzY6a5aF8T-twTBiiJjaZ2yEon5jtBOXomVt530G-GkFdsD5xdC-mhVC0JCnje6MJpJnVe1aeqmpoVSqlFppapR6_0-2tB0oLeFle2B6KGlt0uxcGtRsaqmnKLA672Ad9cDhCg6GxS0WEBwwy7vgmWMc0Rf_oPef7s9tZB4Adsbh3HVKCpmWGHKaElHanoPhY-GzipsGmPx_MDhzYEDMhFu4kIOIYj558v_Zy--HbKv7rBLbNa4DK4dxjYOh2C-A5V3IXgwt0VOqRhH8G81xDiCYj-C2R9Ulynb</recordid><startdate>20210719</startdate><enddate>20210719</enddate><creator>Jones, Janet E</creator><creator>Damery, Sarah L</creator><creator>Allen, Kerry</creator><creator>Johnson, David W</creator><creator>Lambie, Mark</creator><creator>Holvoet, Els</creator><creator>Davies, Simon J</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9057-6956</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6285-5368</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3681-8608</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5491-3460</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210719</creationdate><title>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</title><author>Jones, Janet E ; Damery, Sarah L ; Allen, Kerry ; Johnson, David W ; Lambie, Mark ; Holvoet, Els ; Davies, Simon J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-b174e66da803406f1284a0081977dc76eaf21688b66f64f45bb8d5003554ad193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Complications and side effects</topic><topic>Continuity</topic><topic>Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Dialysis</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Focus groups</topic><topic>Health sciences</topic><topic>Health services administration</topic><topic>Hemodialysis</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>International studies</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Kidneys</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Peritoneal dialysis</topic><topic>Peritoneum</topic><topic>Professional ethics</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Renal failure</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Services</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jones, Janet E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Damery, Sarah L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, Kerry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, David W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lambie, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holvoet, Els</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davies, Simon J</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jones, Janet E</au><au>Damery, Sarah L</au><au>Allen, Kerry</au><au>Johnson, David W</au><au>Lambie, Mark</au><au>Holvoet, Els</au><au>Davies, Simon J</au><au>Selman, Lucy E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>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</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2021-07-19</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0254931</spage><epage>e0254931</epage><pages>e0254931-e0254931</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Many 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. Sixty-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. For 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. This 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.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>34280249</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0254931</doi><tpages>e0254931</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9057-6956</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6285-5368</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3681-8608</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5491-3460</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2021-07, Vol.16 (7), p.e0254931-e0254931 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2553219127 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Biology and Life Sciences Clinical medicine Complications and side effects Continuity Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis Data analysis Data collection Dialysis Evaluation Focus groups Health sciences Health services administration Hemodialysis Hospitals International studies Interviews Kidneys Medical personnel Medical research Medicine and Health Sciences Morbidity Patient outcomes Patient satisfaction Patients People and Places Peritoneal dialysis Peritoneum Professional ethics Qualitative research Renal failure Researchers Services Social Sciences |
title | 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 |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T05%3A07%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Renal%20staffs%E2%80%99%20understanding%20of%20patients%E2%80%99%20experiences%20of%20transition%20from%20peritoneal%20dialysis%20to%20in-centre%20haemodialysis%20and%20their%20views%20on%20service%20improvement:%20A%20multi-site%20qualitative%20study%20in%20England%20and%20Australia&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Jones,%20Janet%20E&rft.date=2021-07-19&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0254931&rft.epage=e0254931&rft.pages=e0254931-e0254931&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0254931&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA669020707%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2553219127&rft_id=info:pmid/34280249&rft_galeid=A669020707&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_ae44bd5fd2ad489fb9b905cccbc18c87&rfr_iscdi=true |