Title |
Perspectives of continuous renal replacement therapy in the intensive care unit: a paired survey study of patient, physician, and nurse views
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Nephrology, July 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12882-015-0086-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Andrew S. Allegretti, Gregory Hundemer, Rajeev Chorghade, Katherine Cosgrove, Ednan Bajwa, Ishir Bhan |
Abstract |
Recent studies suggest discrepancies between patients and providers around perceptions of hemodialysis prognosis. Such data are lacking for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). We aim to assess patient and provider understanding of outcomes around CRRT. From February 1 to August 31, 2013, a triad of (1) a patient on CRRT (or health care proxy [HCP]), (2) physician and (3) primary nurse from the intensive care unit (ICU) team were surveyed. Univariate chi-square and qualitative analysis techniques were used. Ninety-six total participants (32 survey triads) were completed. Ninety one percent of patients/HCPs correctly identified that CRRT replaced the function of the kidneys. Six percent of patients/HCPs, 44 % of physicians, and 44 % of nurses identified rates of survival to hospital discharge that were consistent with published literature. Both physicians and nurses were more likely than patients/HCPs to assess survival consistently with published data (p = 0.001). Patients/HCPs were more likely to overestimate survival rates than physicians and nurses (p < 0.001). Thirty eight percent of patients/HCPs, 38 % of physicians, and 28 % of nurses identified rates of lifelong dialysis-dependence among surviving patients that were consistent with published literature. There is mismatch between patients, HCPs, and providers around prognosis of CRRT. Patients/HCPs are more likely to overestimate chances of survival than physicians or nurses. Further intervention is needed to improve this knowledge gap. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
New Zealand | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
Researcher | 7 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
Other | 6 | 14% |
Unknown | 12 | 28% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 33% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 28% |
Psychology | 2 | 5% |
Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
Other | 2 | 5% |
Unknown | 11 | 26% |