Dataset Information

Why do physicians prescribe dialysis? A prospective questionnaire study.

ABSTRACT: The incidence of unplanned dialysis initiation (DI) with consequent increased comorbidity, mortality and reduced modality choice remains high, but the optimal timing of dialysis initiation (DI) remains controversial, and there is a lack of studies of specific reasons for DI. We investigated why and when physicians prescribe dialysis and hypothesized that physician motivation for DI is an independent factor which may have clinical consequences.In the Peridialysis study, an ongoing multicenter prospective study assessing the causes and timing of DI and consequences of unplanned dialysis, physicians in 11 hospitals were asked to describe their primary, secondary and further reasons for prescribing DI. The stated reasons for DI were analyzed in relation to clinical and biochemical data at DI, and characteristics of physicians.In 446 patients (median age 67 years; 38% females; diabetes 25.6%), DI was prescribed by 84 doctors who stated 23 different primary reasons for DI. The primary indication was clinical in 63% and biochemical in 37%; 23% started for life-threatening conditions. Reduced renal function accounted for only 19% of primary reasons for DI but was a primary or contributing reason in 69%. The eGFR at DI was 7.2 ±3.4 ml/min/1.73 m2, but varied according to comorbidity and cause of DI. Patients with cachexia, anorexia and pulmonary stasis (34% with heart failure) had the highest eGFR (8.2-9.8 ml/min/1.73 m2), and those with edema, "low GFR", and acidosis, the lowest (4.6-6.1 ml/min/1.73 m2). Patients with multiple comorbidity including diabetes started at a high eGFR (8.7 ml/min/1.73 m2). Physician experience played a role in dialysis prescription. Non-specialists were more likely to prescribe dialysis for life-threatening conditions, while older and more experienced physicians were more likely to start dialysis for clinical reasons, and at a lower eGFR. Female doctors started dialysis at a higher eGFR than males (8.0 vs. 7.1 ml/min/1.73 m2).DI was prescribed mainly based on clinical reasons in accordance with current recommendations while low renal function accounted for only 19% of primary reasons for DI. There are considerable differences in physicians´ stated motivations for DI, related to their age, clinical experience and interpretation of biochemical variables. These differences may be an independent factor in the clinical treatment of patients, with consequences for the risk of unplanned DI.

SUBMITTER: Heaf J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5737975 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Why do physicians prescribe dialysis? A prospective questionnaire study.

Heaf James J Petersons Aivars A Vernere Baiba B Heiro Maija M Povlsen Johan V JV Sørensen Anette Bagger AB Rosenberg Mai M Løkkegaard Niels N Alonso-Garcia Fabiola F Kampmann Jan Dominik JD Clyne Naomi N Randers Else E Heimburger Olof O Lindholm Bengt B

PloS one 20171220 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>The incidence of unplanned dialysis initiation (DI) with consequent increased comorbidity, mortality and reduced modality choice remains high, but the optimal timing of dialysis initiation (DI) remains controversial, and there is a lack of studies of specific reasons for DI. We investigated why and when physicians prescribe dialysis and hypothesized that physician motivation for DI is an independent factor which may have clinical consequences.<h4>Methods</h4>In the Peridialy ...[more]

PMID: 29261657

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough cancer management in dialysis patients has become a commonly encountered issue, known as "onco-nephrology", few evidence-based clinical recommendations have been proposed. Here, we examined the variation in referral behaviors adopted by dialysis physicians on encountering dialysis patients with signs/symptoms suggestive of cancer.MethodsWe conducted a vignette-based study in August 2015. We sent a 14-page questionnaire to 191 dialysis physicians, including the representative dialysis facilities participating in a Japanese dialysis cohort (the Japan Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study). Using vignette scenarios for respiratory, digestive, and urological areas, we assessed the referral behaviors (expert referral or not) adopted by dialysis physicians on encountering dialysis patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer. Each scenario contained three patient functional factors: age (60 or 75 years), performance status (PS 0 or 1), and cognitive dysfunction (absence or presence). We examined the association between physician factors, patient factors, and referral behaviors.ResultsWe obtained 94 replies (response rate: 49.2%). For the respiratory scenarios, 38.3% and 51.9% of physicians reported watchful waiting when encountering bilateral and unilateral pleural effusion, respectively. In digestive and urologic scenarios, most physicians (>85%) selected expert referral. We detected differences in referral behaviors between scenarios with different cancer biological factors. However, we found consistency in referral behaviors within the same scenario, even with different patient functional factors (intra-class correlation coefficients within each scenario all >0.7).ConclusionsPhysicians' referral behaviors for dialysis patients suspected of having cancer vary for different cancer biological factors (probability of having cancer). However, the referral behaviors are similar for different patient functional factors (age, PS, and cognitive dysfunction).

Project description:BackgroundBlood shortage is a persistent problem affecting Taiwan's health-care system. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) has been commonly used in studies of health advocacy. The purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire measuring clinicians' intention to prescribe transfusion based on the TPB.MethodA questionnaire comprising 15 items for assessing clinicians' intention to prescribe blood transfusion was developed, and it collected demographic characteristics, tested patient blood management (PBM) and perceived knowledge of PBM. Furthermore, the questionnaire contained four subscales related to the TPB. A total of 129 clinicians participated in this pilot study between July and December2020. Item analysis and exploratory factor analysis were conducted to examine the validity and reliability of this measurement instrument.ResultsThe results indicated no statistically significant correlations between the demographic characteristics and PBM test scores. Regarding perceived knowledge, the results of a one-way analysis of variance revealed that the effect of age, hierarchy of doctors, and education level were significant. In terms of subjective norms, a significant effect on education level was noted [t (129) = 2.28, p < 0.05], with graduate school graduates receiving higher scores than college graduates. An analysis of variance demonstrated the effects of hierarchy, education level, and medical specialty on perceived behavioral control. The results of the regression analyses revealed that perceived knowledge (β = 0.32, p < 0.01) and subjective norms (β = 0.22, p < 0.05) were significantly related to clinicians' behavioral intentions.ConclusionsThis study revealed that factors affecting clinicians' blood transfusion management can be explained using the TPB-based questionnaire. This study demonstrated that physicians' perceptions of whether most people approve of PBM and their self-assessment of their PBM knowledge affect their intentions to proceed with PBM. According to this finding, a support system among physicians must be established and maintained to increase physicians' confidence in promoting PBM.

Project description:BackgroundDigitalization is a disruptive technology that changes the way we deliver diagnostic procedures and treatments in medicine. Different stakeholders have varying interests in and expectations of the digitalization of modern medicine. Many recent digital advances in the medical field, such as the implementation of electronic health records, telemedical services, and mobile health apps, are increasingly used by medical professionals and patients. During the current pandemic outbreak of a novel coronavirus-caused respiratory disease (COVID-19), many modern information and communication technologies (ICT) have been used to overcome the physical barriers and limitations caused by government-issued curfews and workforce shortages. Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in the usage of modern ICT in medicine. At the same time, the eHealth literacy of physicians working with these technologies has probably not improved since our study.ObjectiveThis paper describes a representative cohort of German physicians before the COVID-19 pandemic and their eHealth literacy and attitude towards modern ICT.MethodsA structured, self-developed questionnaire about user behavior and attitudes towards eHealth applications was administered to a representative cohort of 93 German physicians.ResultsOf the 93 German physicians who participated in the study, 97% (90/93) use a mobile phone. Medical apps are used by 42% (39/93). Half of the surveyed physicians (47/93, 50%) use their private mobile phones for official purposes on a daily basis. Telemedicine is part of the daily routine for more than one-third (31/93, 33%) of all participants. More than 80% (76/93, 82%) of the trial participants state that their knowledge regarding the legal aspects and data safety of medical apps and cloud computing is insufficient.ConclusionsModern ICT is frequently used and mostly welcomed by German physicians. However, there is a tremendous lack of eHealth literacy and knowledge about the safe and secure implementation of these technologies in routine clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundIt is estimated that there are over 16.8 million rare disease patients in China, representing a significant challenge for the healthcare system and society. Rare disease patients often experience delayed diagnosis, misdiagnosis, or improper treatment, which may be due to the lack of rare disease awareness among physicians.Materials and methodsA total of 224 physicians from different hospitals in China participated in the questionnaire, and 9 rare disease experts were interviewed with open-ended questions.ResultsMost physicians (83.5%) were from Tertiary hospitals, which have over 500 beds. Only 5.3% of physicians were moderately or well aware of rare diseases. Most physicians (80.1%) had suspected their patients to have rare diseases less than 3 times. There was a strong support for special legislations for rare diseases and orphan drugs. Further, multinomial logistic regression (MLR) was used to determine whether hospitals, gender, and career length has an impact on perspectives and awareness. It was shown that male physicians were more likely to think newborn screening is important (p < 0.05). The longer the career length is, the more likely physicians believe that their previous education has not provided sufficient information about rare diseases and that their hospital has paid enough attention to rare diseases. Physicians from Tertiary A hospitals were more likely to rate the affordability of orphan drugs high. In addition, nine experts believed that rare disease awareness is essential for early diagnosis and timely treatment. These experts also made recommendations on how to improve rare disease awareness through medical school education and continuing training.ConclusionsOur study highlighted the importance of improving rare disease awareness among physicians in China. Recommendations about how to improve rare disease awareness in medical school education and establish an online 'information hub' are made for considerations of policy-makers.

Project description:ObjectiveThe overall objective of this study was to examine the differences in ultrasound availability in primary care across Europe.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingPrimary care.ParticipantsPrimary care physicians (PCPs).Primary and secondary outcomes measuresThe primary aim was to describe the variation in in-house primary care ultrasonography availability across Europe using descriptive statistics. The secondary aim was to explore associations between in-house ultrasonography availability and the characteristics of PCPs and their clinics using a mixed-effects logistic regression model.ResultsWe collected data from 20 European countries. A total of 2086 PCPs participated, varying from 59 to 446 PCPs per country. The median response rate per country was 24.8%. The median (minimum-maximum) percentage of PCPs across Europe with access to in-house abdominal ultrasonography was 15.3% (0.0%-98.1%) and 12.1% (0.0%-30.8%) had access to in-house pelvic ultrasonography with large variations between countries. We found associations between in-house abdominal ultrasonography availability and larger clinics (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.9) and clinics with medical doctors specialised in areas, which traditionally use ultrasonography (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.8). Corresponding associations were found between in-house pelvic ultrasonography availability and larger clinics (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.7) and clinics with medical doctors specialised in areas, which traditionally use ultrasonography (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.1). Additionally, we found a negative association between urban clinics and in-house pelvic ultrasound availability (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.9).ConclusionsAcross Europe, there is a large variation in PCPs' access to in-house ultrasonography and organisational aspects of primary care seem to determine this variation. If evidence continues to support ultrasonography as a front-line point-of-care test, implementation strategies for increasing its availability in primary care are needed. Future research should focus on facilitators and barriers that may affect the implementation process.

Dataset Information

Why do physicians prescribe dialysis? A prospective questionnaire study.

Publications

Why do physicians prescribe dialysis? A prospective questionnaire study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets