Development of a hemodialysis safety checklist using a structured panel process

Enhancing the Cardiovascular Safety of Hemodialysis Care Using Multimodal Provider Education and Patient Activation Interventions: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is treated with dialysis or kidney transplantation, with most patients with ESKD receiving in-center hemodialysis treatment. This life-saving treatment can result in cardiovascular and hemodynamic instability, with the most common form being low blood pressure during the dialysis treatment (intradialytic hypotension [IDH]). IDH is a complication of hemodialysis that can involve symptoms such as fatigue, nausea, cramping, and loss of consciousness. IDH increases risks of cardiovascular disease and ultimately hospitalizations and mortality. Provider-level and patient-level decisions influence the occurrence of IDH; thus, IDH may be preventable in routine hemodialysis care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the independent and comparative effectiveness of 2 interventions-one directed at hemodialysis providers and another for patients-in reducing the rate of IDH at hemodialysis facilities. In addition, the study will assess the effects of interventions on secondary patient-centered clinical outcomes and examine factors associated with a successful implementation of the interventions.

METHODS

This study is a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial to be conducted in 20 hemodialysis facilities in the United States. Hemodialysis facilities will be randomized using a 2 × 2 factorial design, such that 5 sites will receive a multimodal provider education intervention, 5 sites will receive a patient activation intervention, 5 sites will receive both interventions, and 5 sites will receive none of the 2 interventions. The multimodal provider education intervention involved theory-informed team training and the use of a digital, tablet-based checklist to heighten attention to patient clinical factors associated with increased IDH risk. The patient activation intervention involves tablet-based, theory-informed patient education and peer mentoring. Patient outcomes will be monitored during a 12-week baseline period, followed by a 24-week intervention period and a 12-week postintervention follow-up period. The primary outcome of the study is the proportion of treatments with IDH, which will be aggregated at the facility level. Secondary outcomes include patient symptoms, fluid adherence, hemodialysis adherence, quality of life, hospitalizations, and mortality.

RESULTS

This study is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and approved by the University of Michigan Medical School's institutional review board. The study began enrolling patients in January 2023. Initial feasibility data will be available in May 2023. Data collection will conclude in November 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of provider and patient education on reducing the proportion of sessions with IDH and improving other patient-centered clinical outcomes will be evaluated, and the findings will be used to inform further improvements in patient care. Improving the stability of hemodialysis sessions is a critical concern for clinicians and patients with ESKD; the interventions targeted to providers and patients are predicted to lead to improvements in patient health and quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03171545; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03171545.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/46187.

A Systematic Literature Review of Safety Culture in Hemodialysis Settings

Background

Safety culture is an important aspect of quality in healthcare settings. There are many risks that patients can encounter in hemodialysis settings one of which is the infection risks due to the regular need to access bloodstreams using catheters and needles. Implementation of prevention guidelines, protocols and strategies that reinforce safety culture excellence are essential to mitigate risks. The objective of this study was to identify and characterize the main strategies that enhance and improve patient safety culture in hemodialysis settings.

Methods

Medline (via PubMed) and Scopus were searched from 2010 to 2020 in English. Terms defining safety culture, patient safety were combined with the term hemodialysis during the search. The studies were chosen based on inclusion criteria.

Results

A total of 17 articles reporting on six countries were identified that met inclusion criteria following the PRISMA statement. From the 17 papers, practices that were successfully applied to improve safety culture in hemodialysis settings included (i) training of nurses on the technologies used in hemodialysis treatment, (ii) proactive risk identification tools to prevent infections (iii) root cause analysis in evaluating the errors, (iv) hemodialysis checklist to be used by the dialysis nurses to reduce the adverse events, and (v) effective communication and mutual trust between the employee and leadership to support no-blame environment, and improve the safety culture.

Conclusion

This systematic review provided significant insights on the strategies that healthcare safety managers and policy makers can implement to enhance safety culture in hemodialysis settings.

Checklist design and implementation: critical considerations to improve patient safety for low-frequency, high-risk patient events

Purpose: This pilot project describes the development and implementation of two specialised aviation-style checklist designs for a low-frequency high-risk patient population in a cardiac intensive care unit. The effect of the checklist design as well as the implementation strategies on patient outcomes and adherence to best practice guidelines were also explored. The long-term objective was to improve adherence to accepted processes of care by establishing the checklists as standard practice thereby improving patient safety and outcomes.

Methods: During this project, 10specialised crisis checklists using two specific aviation-style designs were developed. A quasiexperimental prospective pre-post repeated measure design including surveys along with repetitive simulations were used to evaluate self-confidence and self-efficacy over time as well as the perceived utility, ease of use, fit into workflow and benefits of the checklists use to patients. Performance, patient outcomes and manikin outcomes were also used to evaluate the effectiveness of the crisis checklists on provider behaviours and patient outcomes.

Results: Overall self-confidence and self-confidence related to skills and knowledge while not significant demonstrated clinically relevant improvements that were sustained over time. Perceptions of the checklists were positive with consistent utilisation sustained over time. More importantly, use of the checklists demonstrated a reduction in errors both in the simulated and clinical setting.

Conclusion: Recommendations from this study consist of key considerations for development and implementation of checklists including: utilisation of stakeholders in the development phase; implementation in real and simulated environments; and ongoing reinforcement and training to sustain use.

Nursing educational intervention for the identification of Adverse Events in hemodialysis

ABSTRACT Objective: To develop an educational program aimed at the qualification of the nursing technicians that makes possible the understanding of Adverse Events (AE), aiming to adapt the data records; to elaborate tools for the records of the AE in hemodialysis patients; and to assess the knowledge before and after the educational program. Method: An educational intervention was conducted through a classroom and online course on how to recognize and record AE in hemodialysis. The effectiveness of the program was assessed through the gain of knowledge measured through online record of the AE in fictitious problem cases before and after the course. Result: Sixteen nursing technicians participated in the study. In the initial test, the mean score was 3.7 ± 0.3 points and in the final assessment was 4.2 ± 0.3 points (p=0.0002). Conclusion: It was possible to verify that the educational intervention contributed to increase the knowledge of the participants and that the training of these can be achieved with classroom and online learning courses.

Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)

This document represents the first position statement produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, setting out the minimum expected standards in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The need for this statement has arisen from the recognition that while technical competence can be rapidly acquired, in practice the performance of a high-quality examination is variable, with an unacceptably high rate of failure to diagnose cancer at endoscopy. The importance of detecting early neoplasia has taken on greater significance in this era of minimally invasive, organ-preserving endoscopic therapy. In this position statement we describe 38 recommendations to improve diagnostic endoscopy quality. Our goal is to emphasise practices that encourage mucosal inspection and lesion recognition, with the aim of optimising the early diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disease and improving patient outcomes.

Feasibility of a hemodialysis safety checklist for nurses and patients: a quality improvement study

BACKGROUND

Patients with end-stage renal disease are at high risk for medical errors given their comorbidities, polypharmacy and coordination of care with other hospital departments. We previously developed a hemodialysis safety checklist (Hemo Pause) to be jointly completed by nurses and patients. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of using this checklist during every hemodialysis session for 3 months.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, prospective time series study. A convenience sample of 14 nurses and 22 prevalent in-center hemodialysis patients volunteered to participate. All participants were trained in the administration of the Hemo Pause checklist. The primary outcome was completion of the Hemo Pause checklist, which was assessed at weekly intervals. We also measured the acceptability of the Hemo Pause checklist using a local patient safety survey.

RESULTS

There were 799 hemodialysis treatments pre-intervention (13 January-5 April 2014) and 757 post-intervention (5 May-26 July 2014). The checklist was completed for 556 of the 757 (73%) treatments. Among the hemodialysis nurses, 93% (13/14) agreed that the checklist was easy to use and 79% (11/14) agreed it should be expanded to other patients. Among the hemodialysis patients, 73% (16/22) agreed that the checklist made them feel safer and should be expanded to other patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The Hemo Pause safety checklist was acceptable to both nurses and patients over 3 months. Our next step is to spread this checklist locally and conduct a mixed methods study to determine mechanisms by which its use may improve safety culture and reduce adverse events.