Josephine Sf Chow1,2,3, Kelly Adams4, Yeoungjee Cho5,6, Peter Choi4, Keri-Lu Equinox7, Ana E Figueiredo8, Carmel M Hawley5,6,9,10, Kirsten Howard11, David W Johnson5,6,10, Matthew D Jose12, Anna Lee13, Maureen Longergan13, Karine E Manera11,14, Jo-Anne Moodie15, Peta-Anne Paul-Brent5,9, Elaine M Pascoe5,9, Donna Reidlinger5,9, Genevieve Z Steiner16, Melinda Tomlins4, Allison Tong11,14, David Voss17, Neil C Boudville18. 1. Clinical Innovation and Business Unit, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool Hospital, NSW, Australia. 2. Faculty of Nursing, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. School of Health Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. 4. Department of Renal Medicine, Hunter New England Local Health District, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. 5. Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 6. Department of Nephrology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 7. Department of Renal Medicine, Cairns Hospital, QLD, Australia. 8. Faculty of Nursing, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 9. Australasian Kidney Trials Network, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 10. Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 11. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. 12. School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. 13. Department of Renal Medicine, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Wollongong, NSW, Australia. 14. Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, NSW, Australia. 15. Department of Nephrology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, VIC, Australia. 16. NICM Health Research Institute and Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia. 17. Department of Renal Medicine, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 18. Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is substantial variation in peritonitis rates across peritoneal dialysis (PD) units globally. This may, in part, be related to the wide variability in the content and delivery of training for PD nurse trainers and patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of implementing the Targeted Education ApproaCH to improve Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes (TEACH-PD) curriculum in real clinical practice settings. METHODS: This study used mixed methods including questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (pretraining and post-training) with nurse trainers and patients to test the acceptability and usability of the PD training modules implemented in two PD units over 6 months. Quantitative data from the questionnaires were analysed descriptively. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten PD trainers and 14 incident PD patients were included. Mean training duration to complete the modules were 10.9 h (range 6-17) and 24.9 h (range 15-35), for PD trainers and patients, respectively. None of the PD patients experienced PD-related complications at 30 days follow-up. Three (21%) patients were transferred to haemodialysis due to non-PD-related complications. Ten trainers and 14 PD patients participated in the interviews. Four themes were identified including use of adult learning principles (trainers), comprehension of online modules (trainers), time to complete the modules (trainers) and patient usability of the manuals (patient). CONCLUSION: This TEACH-PD study has demonstrated feasibility of implementation in a real clinical setting. The outcomes of this study have informed refinement of the TEACH-PD modules prior to rigorous evaluation of its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in a large-scale study.
BACKGROUND: There is substantial variation in peritonitis rates across peritoneal dialysis (PD) units globally. This may, in part, be related to the wide variability in the content and delivery of training for PD nurse trainers and patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of implementing the Targeted Education ApproaCH to improve Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes (TEACH-PD) curriculum in real clinical practice settings. METHODS: This study used mixed methods including questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (pretraining and post-training) with nurse trainers and patients to test the acceptability and usability of the PD training modules implemented in two PD units over 6 months. Quantitative data from the questionnaires were analysed descriptively. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten PD trainers and 14 incident PD patients were included. Mean training duration to complete the modules were 10.9 h (range 6-17) and 24.9 h (range 15-35), for PD trainers and patients, respectively. None of the PD patients experienced PD-related complications at 30 days follow-up. Three (21%) patients were transferred to haemodialysis due to non-PD-related complications. Ten trainers and 14 PD patients participated in the interviews. Four themes were identified including use of adult learning principles (trainers), comprehension of online modules (trainers), time to complete the modules (trainers) and patient usability of the manuals (patient). CONCLUSION: This TEACH-PD study has demonstrated feasibility of implementation in a real clinical setting. The outcomes of this study have informed refinement of the TEACH-PD modules prior to rigorous evaluation of its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in a large-scale study.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adult learning principle; competency assessment; peritoneal dialysis; qualitative; training