Outcome measures for technique survival reported in peritoneal dialysis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique survival is an important outcome for patients, caregivers and health professionals, however, the definition and measures used for technique survival vary. We aimed to assess the scope and consistency of definitions and measures used for technique survival in studies of patients receiving PD. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomised controlled studies (RCTs) conducted in patients receiving PD reporting technique survival as an outcome between database inception and December 2019. The definition and measures used were extracted and independently assessed by two reviewers. RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs with a total of 3645 participants (41-371 per trial) and follow up ranging from 6 weeks to 4 years. Terminology used included 'technique survival' (10 studies), 'transfer to haemodialysis (HD)' (8 studies) and 'technique failure' (7 studies) with 17 different definitions. In seven studies, it was unclear whether the definition included transfer to HD, death or transplantation and eight studies reported 'transfer to HD' without further definition regarding duration or other events. Of those remaining, five studies included death in their definition of a technique event, whereas death was censored in the other five. The duration of HD necessary to qualify as an event was reported in only four (16%) studies. Of the 14 studies reporting causes of an event, all used a different list of causes. CONCLUSION: There is substantial heterogeneity in how PD technique survival is defined and measured, likely contributing to considerable variability in reported rates. Standardised measures for reporting technique survival in PD studies are required to improve comparability.

Targeted Education ApproaCH to improve Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes (TEACH-PD): A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial variation in peritonitis rates across peritoneal dialysis (PD) units globally. This may, in part, be related to the wide variability in the content and delivery of training for PD nurse trainers and patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of implementing the Targeted Education ApproaCH to improve Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes (TEACH-PD) curriculum in real clinical practice settings. METHODS: This study used mixed methods including questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (pretraining and post-training) with nurse trainers and patients to test the acceptability and usability of the PD training modules implemented in two PD units over 6 months. Quantitative data from the questionnaires were analysed descriptively. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten PD trainers and 14 incident PD patients were included. Mean training duration to complete the modules were 10.9 h (range 6-17) and 24.9 h (range 15-35), for PD trainers and patients, respectively. None of the PD patients experienced PD-related complications at 30 days follow-up. Three (21%) patients were transferred to haemodialysis due to non-PD-related complications. Ten trainers and 14 PD patients participated in the interviews. Four themes were identified including use of adult learning principles (trainers), comprehension of online modules (trainers), time to complete the modules (trainers) and patient usability of the manuals (patient). CONCLUSION: This TEACH-PD study has demonstrated feasibility of implementation in a real clinical setting. The outcomes of this study have informed refinement of the TEACH-PD modules prior to rigorous evaluation of its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in a large-scale study.