Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Variations in provider practices in remote patient monitoring on peritoneal dialysis in the USA and Canada.
El Shamy, O; Fadel, R; Weinhandl, E D; Abra, G; Salani, M; Shen, J I; Perl, J; Malavade, T S; Chatoth, D; Naljayan, M V; Meyer, K B; Lew, S Q; Oliver, M J; Golper, T A; Uribarri, J; Quinn, R R.
Afiliação
  • El Shamy O; Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
  • Fadel R; Division of Nephrology & Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
  • Weinhandl ED; Department of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
  • Abra G; DaVita Clinical Research, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
  • Salani M; Division of Nephrology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.
  • Shen JI; Division of Nephrology & Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
  • Perl J; Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Malavade TS; Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Lundquist Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA.
  • Chatoth D; Division of Nephrology, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Naljayan MV; Division of Nephrology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Meyer KB; Fresenius Medical Care, Waltham, MA, USA.
  • Lew SQ; DaVita Kidney Care, Denver, CO, USA.
  • Oliver MJ; Section of Nephrology and Hypertension, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
  • Golper TA; Home Dialysis Workgroup, Dialysis Clinic Inc, Nashville, TN, USA.
  • Uribarri J; Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Quinn RR; Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Perit Dial Int ; : 8968608241270294, 2024 Aug 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39105257
ABSTRACT
Automation has allowed clinicians to program PD treatment parameters, all while obtaining extensive individual treatment data. This data populates in a centralized online platform shortly after PD treatment completion. Individual treatment data available to providers includes patients' vital signs, alarms, bypasses, prescribed PD treatment, actual treatment length, individual cycle fill volumes, ultrafiltration volumes, as well as fill, dwell, and drain times. However, there is no guidance about how often or if this data should be assessed by the clinical team members. We set out to determine current practice patterns by surveying members of the home dialysis team managing PD patients across the United States and Canada. A total of 127 providers completed the survey. While 91% of respondents reported having access to a remote monitoring platform, only 31% reported having a standardized protocol for data monitoring. Rating their perceived importance of having a standard protocol for remote data monitoring, on a scale of 0 (not important at all) to 10 (extremely important), the average response was 8 (physicians 7; nurses 9). Most nurses reported reviewing the data multiple times per week, whereas most physicians reported viewing the data only during regular/monthly visits. Although most of the providers who responded have access to remote monitoring data and feel that regular review is important, the degree of its utilization is variable, and the way in which the information is used is not commonly protocolized. Working to standardize data interpretation, testing algorithms, and educating providers to help process and present the data are important next steps.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article