Barriers and facilitators to vascular access point-of-care ultrasound in haemodialysis: An international survey of haemodialysis clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Utilising point-of-care ultrasound for assessment and cannulation of vascular access in people receiving haemodialysis has shown positive clinical results. Nonetheless, there is variation in how renal health care professionals worldwide embrace this method, and there's a lack of research on the factors that promote or hinder its adoption. OBJECTIVES: To explore regional differences, and barriers and facilitators, to the use of point-of-care ultrasound for assessment and cannulation of vascular access in haemodialysis. DESIGN: Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare clinicians working in haemodialysis responsible for cannulation of arteriovenous fistula or grafts. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 645 health care clinicians from 38 countries. 75% to 93% of respondents from Australia/New Zealand, Canada, Europe and United Kingdom/Ireland reported access to ultrasound, compared to 26% (n = 43/167) from the United States respondent's reported lower levels of ultrasound training than other regions. Facilitators for using ultrasound were: the availability of ultrasound training (87%, n = 558), to reduce miscannulations (76%, n = 255/336) and to improve patient outcomes (73%, n = 246/336). Point-of-care ultrasound barriers were lack of access to ultrasound education (82%, n = 196/239), lack of ultrasound machines (33%, n = 212/645) or believing that ultrasound was someone else's role (38%, n = 29/86). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed national and regional differences related to haemodialysis point-of-care ultrasound. Understanding the regions requiring more education and implementation of ultrasound and what motivates staff, or deters from using ultrasound, is crucial for effectiveness of future implementation and workplace change initiatives.

Patients' experiences of cannulation of arteriovenous access for haemodialysis: A qualitative systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Cannulation is an essential part of haemodialysis with arteriovenous access. Patients' experiences of cannulation for haemodialysis are problematic but poorly understood. This review aims to synthesise findings related to patients' experiences of cannulation for haemodialysis from qualitative studies, providing a fuller description of this phenomenon. METHODS: Eligibility criteria defined the inclusion of studies with a population of patients with end-stage kidney disease on haemodialysis. The phenomena of interest was findings related to patients' experiences of cannulation for haemodialysis and the context was both in-centre and home haemodialysis. MedLine, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, BNI, PsycInfo and PubMed were last searched between 20/05/2019 and 23/05/2019. The quality of studies was assessed using the using Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Meta-aggregation was used to synthesise findings and CERQual to assess the strength of accumulated findings. RESULTS: This review included 26 studies. The subject of included studies covered cannulation, pain, experiences of vascular access, experiences of haemodialysis and a research priority setting exercise. From these studies, three themes were meta-aggregated: (1) Cannulation for haemodialysis is an unpleasant, abnormal and unique procedure associated with pain, abnormal appearance, vulnerability and dependency. (2) The necessity of cannulation for haemodialysis emphasises the unpleasantness of the procedure. Success had multiple meanings for patients and patients worry about whether the needle insertion will be successful. (3) Patients survive unpleasant, necessary and repetitive cannulation by learning to tolerate cannulation and exerting control over the procedure. Feeling safe can help them tolerate cannulation better and the cannulator can invoke feeling safe. However, some patients still avoid cannulation, due to its unpleasantness. CONCLUSIONS: Cannulation is a pervasive procedure that impacts on patients' experiences of haemodialysis. This review illuminates further patients' experiences of cannulation for haemodialysis, indicating how improvements can be made to cannulation. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42019134583).

A narrative systematic review of randomised controlled trials that compare cannulation techniques for haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Cannulation of arteriovenous access for haemodialysis affects longevity of the access, associates with complications and affects patients' experiences of haemodialysis. Buttonhole and rope ladder techniques were developed to reduce complications. However, studies that compare these two techniques report disparate results. This systematic review performs an in-depth exploration of RCTs, with a specific focus on cannulation as a complex intervention. METHODS: A PICO question and protocol was developed as per PRISMA-P guidance and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018094656 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=112895). The systematic review included any RCT performed on adult patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing cannulation of arteriovenous fistulae or grafts for in-centre haemodialysis, as performed by healthcare staff. Assessment of quality of RCTs and data extraction were performed by two co-authors independently. Data were extracted on the study design, intervention and comparator and outcomes, including patency, infection and patients' experiences. RESULTS: The literature search identified 241 records. Ten records met inclusion criteria, which described five different RCTs that compared buttonhole to either rope ladder or usual practice. Results were disparate, with patency and infection results varying. Pain Visual Analogue scores were the only measure used to capture patients' experiences and results were inconclusive. All RCTs had differences and limitations in study design that could explain the disparity in results. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not allow definitive conclusions as to whether buttonhole or rope ladder needling technique is superior. Future RCTs should describe interventions and comparators with adequate detail, embed process evaluation, use standardised outcome measures and build on feasibility studies to produce definitive results.

Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation: A national quality improvement project.

Cannulation is essential for haemodialysis with arteriovenous access, but also damages the arteriovenous access making it prone to failure, is associated with complications and affects patients' experiences of haemodialysis. Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation is a national UK quality improvement project, designed to improve cannulation practice in the United Kingdom, ensuring it reflects current needling recommendations. It uses a simple quality improvement method, the Model for Improvement, to structure improvement to cannulation practice. It assists units in the practical implementation of the British Renal Society and Vascular Access Society of Britain and Ireland needling recommendations, ensuring actual cannulation practice reflects what is defined as best practice in cannulation. An eLearning package and awareness materials have been developed, to assist units in changing their cannulation practice. The Kidney Quality Improvement Partnership provides a structure for Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation that promotes development and dissemination. It is hoped that Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation will raise an understanding about the cannulation of arteriovenous access and change behaviours and beliefs around correct cannulation practice, to ensure longevity of this lifeline.

Continuous online monitoring of ionic dialysance allows modification of delivered hemodialysis treatment time.

Considerable intrinsic intrapatient variability influences the actual delivery of Kt/V. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility of using continuous online assessment of ionic dialysance measurements (Kt/V(ID)) to allow dialysis sessions to be altered on an individual basis. Ten well-established chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients without significant residual renal function were studied (mean age 65+/-4.3 [38-81] years, mean length of time on dialysis 66+/-18 [14-189] months). These patients had all been receiving thrice-weekly 4-hr dialysis using Integra dialysis monitors. Dialysis monitors were equipped with Diascan modules permitting measurement of Kt/V(ID). Predicted treatment time required to achieve a Kt/V(ID) > or = 1.1 (equivalent to a urea-based method of 1.2) was calculated from the delivered Kt/V(ID) at 60 and 120 min. Treatment time was reprogrammed at 2 hr (ensuring all planned ultrafiltration would be accommodated into the new modified session duration). Owing to practical issues, and to avoid excessively short dialysis times, these changes were censored at no more than+/-10% of the usual 240-min treatment time (210-265 min). Data were collected from a total of 50 dialysis sessions. Almost all sessions (47/50) required modification of the standard treatment time: 13/50 sessions were lengthened and 34/50 shortened (mean length of session 232.2+/-2.5 [210-265] min). A Kt/V(ID) of > or = 1.1 was achieved in 39/50 sessions. The difference in mean urea-based Kt/V poststudy (1.3+/-0.05 [1.1-1.6]) and mean achieved Kt/V(ID) (1.16+/-0.02 [0.7-1.37]) was significant (p = 0.002). The use of individualized variable dialysis treatment time using online ionic dialysance measurements of Kt/V(ID) appears both practicable and effective at ensuring consistently delivered adequate dialysis.