Developing a haemodialysis acuity tool (the HAT study): A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Haemodialysis units are now managing an increasing number of patients with varying needs and levels of acuity. To maintain safety, haemodialysis patients must be placed in the most appropriate dialysis unit that has the required human and physical resources to care for them. The first step towards achieving these goals is to develop a tool specific to haemodialysis units to effectively measure patient acuity. OBJECTIVE: To develop a haemodialysis acuity tool, utilising a focus group approach, in assessing patient's suitability for a specific dialysis location thus ensuring patient safety. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional qualitative study via a focus group approach. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were nurse unit managers and team leaders of a District Renal Service. APPROACH: Participants were interviewed to explore their views on the elements and measures identified in the research aims. Themes for interviews were informed by current literature on acuity tools for haemodialysis patients' admission to the dialysis units. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and progressively analysed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Ten nurse unit managers/team leaders (100%) were interviewed and thematic analysis of the transcripts was conducted utilising the deductive approach. Five themes were identified which will form the main categories in the development of the tool, namely: Age/frailty; co-morbidity; physical; dialysis; and psychosocial. CONCLUSION: This study is instrumental in the development of the haemodialysis acuity tool which can be used in allocating dialysis location specific to patient's needs and available resources. The tool can also be used in analysing patient care processes and resource requirements based on the patients' and unit's profile.

Multi-center, pragmatic, cluster-randomized, controlled trial of standardized peritoneal dialysis (PD) training versus usual care on PD-related infections (the TEACH-PD trial): trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections, such as peritonitis, exit site, and tunnel infections, substantially impair the sustainability of PD. Accordingly, PD-related infection is the top-priority research outcome for patients and caregivers. While PD nurse trainers teach patients to perform their own PD, PD training curricula are not standardized or informed by an evidentiary base and may offer a potential approach to prevent PD infections. The Targeted Education ApproaCH to improve Peritoneal Dialysis outcomes (TEACH-PD) trial evaluates whether a standardized training curriculum for PD nurse trainers and incident PD patients based on the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) guidelines reduces PD-related infections compared to usual training practices. METHODS: The TEACH-PD trial is a registry-based, pragmatic, open-label, multi-center, binational, cluster-randomized controlled trial. TEACH-PD will recruit adults aged 18 years or older who have not previously undergone PD training at 42 PD treatment units (clusters) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) between July 2019 and June 2023. Clusters will be randomized 1:1 to standardized TEACH-PD training curriculum or usual training practice. The primary trial outcome is the time to the first occurrence of any PD-related infection (exit site infection, tunnel infection, or peritonitis). The secondary trial outcomes are the individual components of the primary outcome, infection-associated catheter removal, transfer to hemodialysis (greater than 30 days and 180 days), quality of life, hospitalization, all-cause death, a composite of transfer to hemodialysis or all-cause death, and cost-effectiveness. Participants are followed for a minimum of 12 months with a targeted average follow-up period of 2 years. Participant and outcome data are collected from the ANZ Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) and the New Zealand Peritoneal Dialysis (NZPD) Registry. This protocol follows the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines. DISCUSSION: TEACH-PD is a registry-based, cluster-randomized pragmatic trial that aims to provide high-certainty evidence about whether an ISPD guideline-informed standardized PD training curriculum for PD nurse trainers and adult patients prevents PD-related infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03816111. Registered on 24 January 2019.

The ACCELERATE Plus (assessment and communication excellence for safe patient outcomes) Trial Protocol: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, cost-benefit analysis, and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Nurses play an essential role in patient safety. Inadequate nursing physical assessment and communication in handover practices are associated with increased patient deterioration, falls and pressure injuries. Despite internationally implemented rapid response systems, falls and pressure injury reduction strategies, and recommendations to conduct clinical handovers at patients' bedside, adverse events persist. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness, implementation, and cost-benefit of an externally facilitated, nurse-led intervention delivered at the ward level for core physical assessment, structured patient-centred bedside handover and improved multidisciplinary communication. We hypothesise the trial will reduce medical emergency team calls, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, falls and pressure injuries. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will be conducted over 52 weeks. The intervention consists of a nursing core physical assessment, structured patient-centred bedside handover and improved multidisciplinary communication and will be implemented in 24 wards across eight hospitals. The intervention will use theoretically informed implementation strategies for changing clinician behaviour, consisting of: nursing executive site engagement; a train-the-trainer model for cascading facilitation; embedded site leads; nursing unit manager leadership training; nursing and medical ward-level clinical champions; ward nurses' education workshops; intervention tailoring; and reminders. The primary outcome will be a composite measure of medical emergency team calls (rapid response calls and 'Code Blue' calls), unplanned intensive care unit admissions, in-hospital falls and hospital-acquired pressure injuries; these measures individually will also form secondary outcomes. Other secondary outcomes are: i) patient-reported experience measures of receiving safe and patient-centred care, ii) nurses' perceptions of barriers to physical assessment, readiness to change, and staff engagement, and iii) nurses' and medical officers' perceptions of safety culture and interprofessional collaboration. Primary outcome data will be collected for the trial duration, and secondary outcome surveys will be collected prior to each step and at trial conclusion. A cost-benefit analysis and post-trial process evaluation will also be undertaken. DISCUSSION: If effective, this intervention has the potential to improve nursing care, reduce patient harm and improve patient outcomes. The evidence-based implementation strategy has been designed to be embedded within existing hospital workforces; if cost-effective, it will be readily translatable to other hospitals nationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12622000155796. Date registered: 31/01/2022.

Understanding the general practice of telemonitoring integrated care: a qualitative perspective.

Developed in partnership with GPs, a new telehealth model of care using remote monitoring, known as telemonitoring (TM), was introduced in South Western Sydney (SWS) in 2015, transmitting clinical readings taken at home to telehealth coordinators. This study explored the experiences, beliefs and attitudes of general practice staff to identify barriers to and facilitators of the SWS TM model. Responses were collected from a purposive sample of 10 participants via semistructured interviews (n = 9 interview sessions) and the resulting transcripts were analysed thematically. Four themes were identified: lack of understanding and involvement; patient-centred care and empowerment; clinical practice and process factors; and system-wide communication and collaboration. Participants recognised some actual and potential benefits of TM, but barriers to TM were identified across all themes. Feedback provided by participants has informed the ongoing formulation of a more 'GP-led' model of TM.

An Intervention Design: Supporting Skills Development for Peritoneal Dialysis Trainers.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a home-based therapy where nurses train patients in its use. There has been no published randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating any specific protocol for nurses delivering PD training. A standardized education package based upon the best available evidence and utilizing modern educational practices may lead to improved patient outcomes. The aim is to develop a standardized, evidence-based curriculum for PD trainers and patients aligned with guidelines from the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD), using best practice pedagogy. METHODS: A literature search and clinical audit were conducted to identify current practice patterns and best practice. Results were reviewed by a focus group of practitioners comprising PD nurses, nephrologists, consumers, a medical education expert, and an eLearning expert. From this, a training curriculum and modules were developed. RESULTS: A comprehensive PD training curriculum has been developed, which includes modules for training PD nurses (trainers) and patient training manuals. The package comprises 2 introductory modules and 2 clinical case modules. The curriculum is designed for both interactive digital media (trainers) and traditional paper-based teaching with practical demonstrations (patients). Assessment is also addressed. CONCLUSION: The need for the development of a comprehensive and standardized curriculum for PD nurse trainers and their patients was confirmed. This paper outlines the process of the development of this curriculum. Pilot testing of the modules was launched in late 2017 to examine feasibility, and planning has commenced for a RCT in 2019 to investigate the effect of the modules on clinical outcomes, and their wider application across Australia and New Zealand.

Practice of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Flushing in Australia and New Zealand: Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of effective interventions to prevent peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter malfunction before first use is presently insufficient to guide clinical care. Regular flushing of the PD catheter (e.g. before PD commencement) has been adopted by some practitioners in the belief that it will prevent catheter obstruction and/or malfunction. The aim of this study was to characterize and evaluate PD catheter flushing practices across Australian and New Zealand PD units. METHODS: An on-line survey was distributed to all 62 PD units in Australia (12 August 2016; n = 51) and New Zealand (2 February 2017; n = 11), with questions relating to PD catheter flushing practices, audit, and outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-nine units of variable size (< 16 to > 100 patients) completed the survey (79% response rate). All centers flushed PD catheters at some stage after insertion as routine unit practice. Forty-one units (84%) routinely flushed during periods of PD rest at varying intervals ranging from alternate daily to monthly. The type and volume of solution used to flush varied between units. Units that practised routine flushing of PD catheters were almost twice as likely to audit their catheter-related outcomes (66% vs 38%, p = 0.23) and more likely to have reported blocked catheters in the preceding 12 months (84% vs 0%, p = 0.01) compared with those units that did not routinely flush PD catheters. Thirty units (61%) regularly audited and monitored catheter-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a wide variation in center practices relating to PD catheter flushing. Drawing conclusions about any relationship between flushing practices and clinical outcomes was impeded by the relatively low uptake of regular auditing and monitoring of catheter-related outcomes across surveyed units. Evaluation of the benefits and harms of standardized PD catheter flushing practices on patient outcomes in a randomized trial is needed to guide practice.

Review: anticoagulation for haemodialysis.

The coagulation cascade is complex but well studied. Dialysis membranes and lines are inherently pro-coagulant and activate both the intrinsic and extrinsic pathways of coagulation, as well as platelets and other circulating cellular elements. To provide safe and effective dialysis, appropriate anticoagulant measures must be applied. Haemodialysis, including anticoagulation, is prescribed by dialysis doctors but delivered by dialysis nurses. The main agents used in clinical practice for anticoagulation during haemodialysis are unfractionated heparin (UF heparin) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). LMWH has a number of potential advantages, apart from cost. One of the most serious complications of the use of any form of heparin is heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (HIT) Type II, which occurs more commonly with UF heparin than LMWH. HIT Type II risks severe morbidity and mortality and is challenging to treat successfully in both the acute and chronic phase. In HIT Type II anticoagulation must be delivered without heparin. A wide array of newer anticoagulants are becoming progressively available, each with unique advantages and disadvantages. In maintenance haemodialysis patients with an increased risk of bleeding, a 'no heparin' dialysis may be undertaken, or regional anticoagulation considered. Because this aspect of dialysis is so important to the safe and effective delivery of haemodialysis therapy, dialysis clinicians need to review and update their knowledge of dialysis anticoagulation on a regular basis.

Acute vascular access catheters for haemodialysis: complications limiting technique survival.

The use of acute vascular access catheters (AVACs) has facilitated the delivery of haemodialysis to patients lacking functioning access. A review of the experience of a tertiary Australian renal treatment centre, consisting of 205 sequential AVACs in 93 patients, was undertaken over 1 year, to identify issues limiting technique survival. Acute vascular access catheters were inserted as acute dialysis access for patients with chronic renal failure (CRF; 21%), failed grafts or fistulae (18%), acute renal failure (12%), failed chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD; 8%) or failed prior AVACs (37%). The majority of AVACs were on the right (74%), and the placement site was simple jugular (69%), tunnelled jugular (15%), femoral (12%), or subclavian (4%). During follow up, 198 of 205 AVACs were removed. The mean AVAC survival was superior (P < 0.0001, Fisher's protected least significant difference (PLSD) for tunnelled jugular AVACS (62 +/- 46 (SD) days) compared with simple jugular (20 +/- 19), subclavian (18 +/- 13) and femoral (7 +/- 6). Causes for AVAC removal were: elective (47%), blockage (31%), infection (20%) or cracked catheter (1%). Routine postremoval tip cultures grew coagulase negative Staphylococcus (CNS, 46%), negative culture (33%), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; 9%), Staphylococcus aureus (9%), Gram-negative rods (1%), Pseudomonas (0.5%) or other uncommon organisms (2%). Blood cultures were drawn through the AVAC in the setting of suspected bacteraemia in 42 of 198 AVACs. Blood cultures were negative in 40%. Positive cultures included Staphylococcus species in 55%: including MRSA (19%), Staphylococcus aureus (29%) and CNS (34%). Rare cultures identified Escherichia coli (2%) or Serratia (2%). Infection and blockage significantly reduced AVAC survival, affecting more than 50% of cases. Approaches to minimize these complications are likely to lead to improved clinical outcomes with AVAC use.