ABSTRACT
This article, written by several authors, describes the birth and early development of the nephrology at Molinette Hospital in Torino, Italy. In particular, it supplies important information on Antonio Vercellone, very motivated and innovative clinician and one of the fathers of Italian nephrology, and on Giuseppe Piccoli, his right-hand man and then his successor. This article also shows the strong professional and human engagement that was requested to the young doctors who, in the early Sixties and Seventies of the past century, had chosen to devote their professional lives to the patients with kidney diseases: from endless workdays without schedules to the anguish caused by the shortage of artificial kidneys to the cure of very fragile and unfortunate patients, and much more.
Subject(s)
Kidney Diseases , Nephrology , Physicians , Humans , Nephrology/history , Kidney Diseases/history , Hospitals , ItalySubject(s)
Disasters , Emergency Service, Hospital , Hemofiltration , Renal Insufficiency/therapy , Humans , Italy , Water PurificationABSTRACT
In the aging of Western populations, decreased mortality is counterbalanced by an increase in morbidity, particularly involving chronic diseases such as most renal diseases. The price of the successful care of chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases or diabetes, is a continuous increase in new dialysis patients. However, the increased survival of patients on chronic renal replacement therapies poses new challenges to nephrologists and calls for new models of care. Since its split from internal medicine, nephrology has seen a progressive trend toward super specialization and the differentiation into at least 3 major branches (nephrology, dialysis, and transplantation), following a path common to several other fields of internal medicine. The success in the care of chronic patients is owed not only to a careful technical prescription, but also to the ability to teach self-care and attain compliance; this requires good medical practice and a sound patient-physician relationship. In this context, the usual models of care may fail to provide adequate coordination and, despite valuable single elements, could end up as an orchestra without a conductor. We propose an integrated model of care oriented to the type of patient (tested in our area especially for diabetic patients): the patient is followed-up by the same team from the first signs of renal disease to eventual dialysis or transplantation. This model offers an interesting alternative both for patients, who usually seek continuity of care, and for nephrologists who prefer a holistic and integrated patient-physician approach.
Subject(s)
Continuity of Patient Care/organization & administration , Kidney Diseases/therapy , Kidney Transplantation , Models, Organizational , Physician-Patient Relations , Progressive Patient Care/organization & administration , Renal Dialysis , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Ambulatory Care Facilities , Chronic Disease , Disease Progression , Female , Hemodialysis Units, Hospital , Hemodialysis, Home , Holistic Health , Hospitals, University , Humans , Italy , Kidney Diseases/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Nephrology/education , Nephrology/organization & administration , Patient ComplianceABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Concerns about vascular access failure may have limited the widespread use of daily haemodialysis (DHD). We assessed the incidence and type of vascular access complications during DHD and other schedules, both at home and on limited care haemodialysis. METHODS: All patients were treated in a limited care and home haemodialysis unit with a stable caregiver team (November 1998-November 2002). Vascular access failure, surgical treatment, angioplasty and declotting were studied alone or in combination by univariate and multivariate models. We analysed the effects of age, sex, comorbidity, previous vascular events, schedule, setting of treatment (home, limited care), dialysis follow-up, vascular access (native vs prosthetic, first vs subsequent) and setting of vascular access creation. 'Intention to treat' and 'per protocol' analyses were performed. RESULTS: In 2160 patient-months (home dialysis: DHD 400 months, non-DHD 655 months; limited care: DHD 208 months; non-DHD 897 months), 57 adverse events occurred (27 failures), in which 30 were at home (nine DHD) and 27 were in limited care (five DHD). The probability of remaining free from adverse events at 6 and 12 months was 89% and 80% on DHD and 79% and 76% on other schedules ('intention to treat'). Univariate analyses revealed a significant difference for the setting of the vascular access creation (lower risk of vascular access complications in our centre) and sex (male sex was protective). Logistic regression and Cox analyses confirmed the role for the setting of the vascular access creation. CONCLUSIONS: Although DHD did not appear as a risk factor for vascular access morbidity or failure at home or in a limited care centre setting, the setting of vascular access creation may influence its success.
