| Literature DB >> 35562513 |
Bahriye Uzun Kenan1, Beltinge Demircioglu Kilic2, Mehtap Akbalık Kara3, Aysel Taktak4, Aysun Karabay Bayazit5, Zeynep Nagehan Yuruk Yildirim6, Ali Delibas7, Mehmet Baha Aytac8, Secil Conkar9, Gulsah Kaya Aksoy10, Osman Donmez11, Sibel Yel12, Seha Saygili13, Okan Akaci14, Bahar Buyukkaragoz1, Harika Alpay15, Sevcan A Bakkaloglu16.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) is increasingly preferred worldwide. By using a software application (Homechoice with Claria sharesource system (CSS)) with a mod-M added to the APD device, details of the home dialysis treatment become visible for PD nurses and physicians, allowing for close supervision. We aimed to evaluate the perceptions of patients/caregivers, PD nurses, and physicians about the advantages and disadvantages of CSS.Entities:
Keywords: Children; Peritoneal dialysis; Quality of life; Remote monitoring
Year: 2022 PMID: 35562513 PMCID: PMC9106572 DOI: 10.1007/s00467-022-05563-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pediatr Nephrol ISSN: 0931-041X Impact factor: 3.714
Fig. 1System recognition among physician
Responses of nurses and physicians regarding the Claria sharesource system
| Common relevant responses | Nurse | Physician |
|---|---|---|
| CSS is a primary nursing application | 73% ( | 41% ( |
| Problems are detected online by using objective and reliable clinical data | 87% ( | 100% ( |
| Problems can be solved in a proactive manner | 80% ( | 82% ( |
| PD nurses first attempt to solve the problem seen in CSS platform prior to physician involvement | 67% ( | 59% ( |
| CSS improves patient monitoring | 87% ( | 73% ( |
| CSS helps save time for everybody | 73% ( | 68% ( |
Suggested clinical benefits of the Claria sharesource system: PD nurse perspective
| a. Nurse perception | |
|---|---|
| Physicians know less about CSS compared to nurses | 73% ( |
| Physicians use CSS-derived data during their clinical visits | 33% ( |
| If the physician is more involved/dominant in the system, the benefit will increase | 60% ( |
| It should be mandatory to enter BW and BP during connection, to evaluate the volume status better | 20% ( |
| Every morning, I review only in patients, new patients, and troubled patients | 40% (n = 6) |
| I review all patient data every morning | 47% ( |
| It increases the adherence of the patient to PD treatment by giving a more equal role to the patient and physician/nurse in responsibility-sharing | 73% ( |
| There are no differences in PD treatment adherence between patients switched to CSS and those who started with CSS at the beginning of APD | 40% ( |
| Documentation of non-adherence with PD treatment (early termination of dialysis, not waiting for drainage time, by-passes, etc.) forces the patient to perform it as prescribed | 80% ( |
| Prolongs the stay of the patient on PD | 53% ( |
| Helps reach target BW and effective BP control | 60% ( |
| Helps distinguish conditions causing low drainage volume such as constipation and catheter tip migration from UF deficiency | 47% ( |
| This system is a good training tool for the patient (fluid balance, dialysis treatment, etc.) | 53% ( |
| Adherence to medications related to CKD complications is better in patients on CSS | 27% ( |
Demographic characteristics of patients/caregivers
| 0–2 years of age | 17% ( | |
| > 2–5 years of age | 30% ( | |
| > 5–10 years of age | 20% ( | |
| > 10–15 years of age | 23% ( | |
| > 15–20 years of age | 10% ( | |
| Mother | 80% ( | |
| Father | 7% ( | |
| Mother-father mutually | 7% ( | |
| The patient | 7% ( | |
| 0.5–1 h | 47% ( | |
| > 1–3 h | 40% ( | |
| > 3 h | 13% ( | |
| Illiterate | 10% ( | |
| Literate | 10% ( | |
| Primary school graduate | 47% ( | |
| Secondary school graduate | 27% ( | |
| High school graduate | 3% ( | |
| University graduate | 3% ( | |
| Yes | 13% ( | |
| No | 87% ( | |
| 12 months | 83% ( | |
| > 12–18 months | 7% ( | |
| > 18 months | 10% ( |
Pros and cons of CSS reported by patients/caregivers
| I initially thought that I could not be able to learn about CSS | 53% | ( |
| I initially thought that my child’s care would be disrupted and the quality of care would decrease | 20% | ( |
| At first, I was worried that face-to-face visits would decrease | 3% | ( |
| I always feel like I am being observed | 23% | ( |
| I can only talk to nurses about the system | 80% | ( |
| I like being under constant monitoring, and it makes me feel safe | 90% | ( |
| Sharing the responsibility of home treatment decreased my burden | 63% | ( |
| It is very good that there is no obligation to keep records at home | 90% | ( |
| Being telephoned is better than having to call the center | 47% | ( |
| My problems are solved in a much shorter time than before | 47% | ( |
| Our family adherence to PD treatment increased | 63% | ( |
| I became more confident in arranging treatment | 57% | ( |
| Changing therapy according to CSS data improved my quality of life (e.g., I felt safe when edema or shortness of breath was resolved by treatment change) | 47% | ( |
| My hospital visits decreased | 20% | ( |
| I have saved my time by eliminating waiting times in hospital | 3% | ( |
| I have saved money | 3% | ( |
| The shortness of breath and edema of my child decreased | 57% | ( |
| My curiosity and responsibility regarding my child’s treatment is increased | 13% | ( |
| The activity and physical capacity of my child increased | 3% | ( |
| The school success of my child increased | 7% | ( |
| The school attendance of my child increased | 10% | ( |
| Compared to the first months, the sleep quality of my child improved, waking up decreased | 83% | ( |
| My sleep quality improved | 70% | ( |