BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) complications are an important barrier to peritoneal dialysis (PD) utilization. Practice guidelines for PDC placement exist, but it is unknown if these recommendations are followed. We performed a quality improvement study to investigate this issue. ♢ METHODS: A prospective observational study involving 46 new patients at a regional US PD center was performed in collaboration with a nephrology fellowship program. Patients completed a questionnaire derived from the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) catheter guidelines and were followed for early complications. ♢ RESULTS: Approximately 30% of patients reported not being evaluated for hernias, not being asked to visualize their exit site, or not receiving catheter location marking before placement. After insertion, 20% of patients reported not being given instructions for follow-up care, and 46% reported not being taught the warning signs of PDC infection. Directions to manage constipation (57%), immobilize the PDC (68%), or leave the dressing undisturbed (61%) after insertion were not consistently reported. Nearly 40% of patients reported that their PDC education was inadequate. In 41% of patients, a complication developed, with 30% of patients experiencing a catheter or exit-site problem, 11% developing infection, 13% needing PDC revision, and 11% requiring unplanned transfer to hemodialysis because of catheter-related problems. ♢ CONCLUSIONS: There were numerous deviations from the ISPD guidelines for PDC placement in the community. Patient satisfaction with education was suboptimal, and complications were frequent. Improving patient education and care coordination for PDC placement were identified as specific quality improvement needs.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) complications are an important barrier to peritoneal dialysis (PD) utilization. Practice guidelines for PDC placement exist, but it is unknown if these recommendations are followed. We performed a quality improvement study to investigate this issue. ♢ METHODS: A prospective observational study involving 46 new patients at a regional US PD center was performed in collaboration with a nephrology fellowship program. Patients completed a questionnaire derived from the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) catheter guidelines and were followed for early complications. ♢ RESULTS: Approximately 30% of patients reported not being evaluated for hernias, not being asked to visualize their exit site, or not receiving catheter location marking before placement. After insertion, 20% of patients reported not being given instructions for follow-up care, and 46% reported not being taught the warning signs of PDC infection. Directions to manage constipation (57%), immobilize the PDC (68%), or leave the dressing undisturbed (61%) after insertion were not consistently reported. Nearly 40% of patients reported that their PDC education was inadequate. In 41% of patients, a complication developed, with 30% of patients experiencing a catheter or exit-site problem, 11% developing infection, 13% needing PDC revision, and 11% requiring unplanned transfer to hemodialysis because of catheter-related problems. ♢ CONCLUSIONS: There were numerous deviations from the ISPD guidelines for PDC placement in the community. Patient satisfaction with education was suboptimal, and complications were frequent. Improving patient education and care coordination for PDC placement were identified as specific quality improvement needs.
Authors: Giovanni F M Strippoli; Allison Tong; David Johnson; Francesco P Schena; Jonathan C Craig Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: R Gokal; S Alexander; S Ash; T W Chen; A Danielson; C Holmes; P Joffe; J Moncrief; K Nichols; B Piraino; B Prowant; A Slingeneyer; B Stegmayr; Z Twardowski; S Vas Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 1998 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Lisa K Prince; Dustin J Little; Katherine I Schexneider; Christina M Yuan Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Julie Wright Nunes; F Jacob Seagull; Panduranga Rao; Jonathan H Segal; Nandita S Mani; Michael Heung Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Mohd Rizal Abdul Manaf; Naren Kumar Surendra; Abdul Halim Abdul Gafor; Lai Seong Hooi; Sunita Bavanandan Journal: Int J Nephrol Date: 2017-10-31