Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Establishing a Successful Home Dialysis Program

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The renewed interest in home dialysis therapies makes it pertinent to address the essentials of establishing and running a successful home dialysis program. The success of a home program depends on a clear understanding of the structure of the home program team, the physical plant, educational tool requirements, reimbursement sources and a business plan. A good command of the technical and economic aspects is important, but the primary drivers for the creation and growth of a home dialysis program are the confidence and commitment of the nephrological team.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Multidisciplinary predialysis programs: quantification and limitations of their impact on patient outcomes in two Canadian settings.

          A 1993 National Institutes of Health Consensus statement stressed the importance of early medical intervention in predialysis populations. Given the need for evidence-based practice, we report the outcomes of predialysis programs in two major Canadian cities. The purpose of this report was to determine whether the institution of a multidisciplinary predialysis program is of benefit to patients, and to analyze those factors that are important in actualizing those benefits. Data from two different studies is presented: (1) a prospective, nonrandomized cohort study comparing patients who were or were not exposed to an ongoing multidisciplinary predialysis team (St Paul's Hospital) and (2) a retrospective review of outcomes before and after the institution of a predialysis program (The Toronto Hospital). Although created independently in major academic centers in Canada, the programs both aimed to reduce urgent dialysis starts, improve preparedness for dialysis, and improve resource utilization. The Vancouver study was able to demonstrate significantly fewer urgent dialysis starts (13% v 35%; P < 0.05), more outpatient training (76% v 43%; P < 0.05), and less hospital days in the first month of dialysis (6.5 days v 13.5 days; P < 0.05). Cost savings of the program patients in 1993 are conservatively estimated to be $173,000 (Canadian dollars) or over $4,000 per patient. The Toronto study demonstrated success in predialysis access creation (86.3% of patients), but could not realize any benefit in terms of elective dialysis initiation due to well-documented hemodialysis resource constraints. We conclude that an approach to predialysis patients involving a multidisciplinary team can have a positive impact on quantitative outcomes, but essential elements for success include (1) early referral to a nephrology center, (2) adequate resources for dedicated predialysis program staff and infrastructure, and (3) available resources for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (dialysis stations). In times of economic constraints, objective data are necessary to justify resource-intensive proactive programs for patients with ESRD. Future studies should confirm and extend our observations so that optimum and cost-effective care for patients approaching ESRD is uniformly available.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Health Economic Evaluations: The Special Case of End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Predicting a patient's choice of dialysis modality: experience in a United Kingdom renal department.

              Education and counseling are important aspects of the management of patients starting dialysis. Free choice of modality may enhance patient well-being and, in the absence of clear survival benefits for either hemodialysis (HD) or continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), should have the major role in modality selection. This prospective study examines factors influencing this choice. Three hundred thirty-three new patients started renal replacement therapy at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital (Birmingham, UK) between August 1, 1992, and July 31, 1998. Data were incomplete for 14 patients, 11 patients were not counseled, and 54 patients had contraindications to a particular modality. The remaining 254 patients were offered a free choice. One hundred thirty-nine patients (55%) chose HD and 115 patients (45%) chose CAPD. Independent predictors for choosing CAPD rather than HD were being married (P = 0.004), being counseled before the start of dialysis (P = 0.019), and increased distance from the base unit (P < 0.001). Independent predictors for choosing HD were increasing age (P = 0.030) and male sex (P = 0.041). Use of these data should enhance planning of dialysis services and bring nearer the goal that all new patients with ESRD are able to have the dialysis modality of their choice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BPU
                Blood Purif
                10.1159/issn.0253-5068
                Blood Purification
                S. Karger AG
                978-3-8055-8052-6
                978-3-318-01301-6
                0253-5068
                1421-9735
                2006
                December 2005
                23 December 2005
                : 24
                : 1
                : 22-27
                Affiliations
                Fresenius Medical Care – North America, Lexington, Mass., USA
                Article
                89432 Blood Purif 2006;24:22–27
                10.1159/000089432
                16361836
                © 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, References: 16, Pages: 6
                Product
                Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/89432
                Categories
                Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article