Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Haemodialysis.

This guideline is written primarily for doctors and nurses working in dialysis units and related areas of medicine in the UK, and is an update of a previous version written in 2009. It aims to provide guidance on how to look after patients and how to run dialysis units, and provides standards which units should in general aim to achieve. We would not advise patients to interpret the guideline as a rulebook, but perhaps to answer the question: "what does good quality haemodialysis look like?"The guideline is split into sections: each begins with a few statements which are graded by strength (1 is a firm recommendation, 2 is more like a sensible suggestion), and the type of research available to back up the statement, ranging from A (good quality trials so we are pretty sure this is right) to D (more like the opinion of experts than known for sure). After the statements there is a short summary explaining why we think this, often including a discussion of some of the most helpful research. There is then a list of the most important medical articles so that you can read further if you want to - most of this is freely available online, at least in summary form.A few notes on the individual sections: 1. This section is about how much dialysis a patient should have. The effectiveness of dialysis varies between patients because of differences in body size and age etc., so different people need different amounts, and this section gives guidance on what defines "enough" dialysis and how to make sure each person is getting that. Quite a bit of this section is very technical, for example, the term "eKt/V" is often used: this is a calculation based on blood tests before and after dialysis, which measures the effectiveness of a single dialysis session in a particular patient. 2. This section deals with "non-standard" dialysis, which basically means anything other than 3 times per week. For example, a few people need 4 or more sessions per week to keep healthy, and some people are fine with only 2 sessions per week - this is usually people who are older, or those who have only just started dialysis. Special considerations for children and pregnant patients are also covered here. 3. This section deals with membranes (the type of "filter" used in the dialysis machine) and "HDF" (haemodiafiltration) which is a more complex kind of dialysis which some doctors think is better. Studies are still being done, but at the moment we think it's as good as but not better than regular dialysis. 4. This section deals with fluid removal during dialysis sessions: how to remove enough fluid without causing cramps and low blood pressure. Amongst other recommendations we advise close collaboration with patients over this. 5. This section deals with dialysate, which is the fluid used to "pull" toxins out of the blood (it is sometimes called the "bath"). The level of things like potassium in the dialysate is important, otherwise too much or too little may be removed. There is a section on dialysate buffer (bicarbonate) and also a section on phosphate, which occasionally needs to be added into the dialysate. 6. This section is about anticoagulation (blood thinning) which is needed to stop the circuit from clotting, but sometimes causes side effects. 7. This section is about certain safety aspects of dialysis, not seeking to replace well-established local protocols, but focussing on just a few where we thought some national-level guidance would be useful. 8. This section draws together a few aspects of dialysis which don't easily fit elsewhere, and which impact on how dialysis feels to patients, rather than the medical outcome, though of course these are linked. This is where home haemodialysis and exercise are covered. There is an appendix at the end which covers a few aspects in more detail, especially the mathematical ideas. Several aspects of dialysis are not included in this guideline since they are covered elsewhere, often because they are aspects which affect non-dialysis patients too. This includes: anaemia, calcium and bone health, high blood pressure, nutrition, infection control, vascular access, transplant planning, and when dialysis should be started.

Evidence of improved fluid management in patients receiving haemodialysis following a self-affirmation theory-based intervention: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Haemodialysis patients are at risk of serious health complications; yet, treatment non-adherence remains high. Warnings about health risks associated with non-adherence may trigger defensive reactions. We studied whether an intervention based on self-affirmation theory reduced resistance to health-risk information and improved fluid treatment adherence. DESIGN: In a cluster randomised controlled trial, 91 patients either self-affirmed or completed a matched control task before reading about the health-risks associated with inadequate fluid control. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' perceptions of the health-risk information, intention and self-efficacy to control fluid were assessed immediately after presentation of health-risk information. Interdialytic weight gain (IDWG), excess fluid removed during haemodialysis, is a clinical measure of fluid treatment adherence. IDWG data were collected up to 12 months post-intervention. RESULTS: Self-affirmed patients had significantly reduced IDWG levels over 12 months. However, contrary to predictions derived from self-affirmation theory, self-affirmed participants and controls did not differ in their evaluation of the health-risk information, intention to control fluid or self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: A low-cost, high-reach health intervention based on self-affirmation theory was shown to reduce IDWG over a 12-month period, but the mechanism by which this apparent behaviour change occurred is uncertain. Further work is still required to identify mediators of the observed effects.

Evidence that self-affirmation improves phosphate control in hemodialysis patients: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis patients are at risk of serious health complications, yet treatment non-adherence remains high. PURPOSE: Warnings about health risks associated with non-adherence may trigger defensive reactions. We studied whether an intervention based on self-affirmation theory (Steele 1988) reduced patients' resistance to health-risk information and improved adherence. METHODS: One hundred twelve patients either self-affirmed or completed a matched control task before reading about the risks associated with a lack of phosphate control. Serum phosphate was collected from baseline up to 12 months. RESULTS: Self-affirmed patients had significantly reduced serum phosphate levels at 1 and 12 months. However, contrary to the predictions derived from self-affirmation theory, self-affirmed participants and controls did not differ in their evaluation of the health-risk information, behavioural intention or self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: A low-cost, high-reach health intervention based on self-affirmation theory was shown to reduce serum phosphate over a 12 month period. Further work is required to identify mediators of the observed effects.