Dataset Information

Contributions of treatment centre and patient characteristics to patient-reported experience of haemodialysis: a national cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To examine the relative importance of patient and centre level factors in determining self-reported experience of care in patients with advanced kidney disease treated by maintenance haemodialysis (HD).

Design

Analysis of data from a cross sectional national survey; the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) national Kidney patient-reported experience measure (PREM) survey (2018). Centre-level data were obtained from the UKRR report (2018).

Setting

National survey of patients with advanced kidney disease receiving treatment with maintenance HD in UK renal centres in 2018.

Participants

The Kidney PREM was distributed to all UK renal centres by the UKRR in May 2018. Each centre invited patients receiving outpatient treatment for kidney disease to complete the PREM. These included patients with chronic kidney disease, those receiving dialysis-both HD and peritoneal dialysis, and those with a functioning kidney transplant. There were no formal inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Main outcome measures

The Kidney PREM has 38 questions in 13 subscales. Responses were captured using a 7-point Likert scale (never 1, always 7). The primary outcome of interest was the mean PREM score calculated across all questions. Multilevel modelling was used to determine the proportion of variation of the mean PREM score across centres due to patient-related and centre-related factors.

Results

There were records for 8253 HD patients (61% men, 77% white) from 69 renal centres (9-710 patients per centre). There was significant variation in mean PREM score across centres (5.35-6.53). In the multivariable analysis there was some variation in relation to both patient- and centre-level factors but these contributed little to explaining the overall variation. However, multilevel modelling showed that the overwhelming proportion of the explained variance (45%) was explained by variation between centres (40%), only a small proportion of which is identified by measured factors. Only 5% of the variation was related to patient-level factors.

Conclusions

Centre rather than patient characteristics determine the experience of care of patients receiving HD. Further work is required to define the characteristics of the treating centre which determine patient experience.

SUBMITTER: Hawkins J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8054084 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs novel therapeutic interventions are being developed and tested in the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) population, there is a need to better understand the symptoms and issues that have the greatest impact on the lives of individuals with ALS. We aimed to determine the frequency and relative importance of symptoms experienced by adults in a national ALS sample and to identify factors that are associated with the greatest disease burden in this population.MethodsWe conducted 15 qualitative interviews of individuals with varied ALS phenotypes and analyzed 732 quotes regarding the symptomatic disease burden of ALS between August 2018 and March 2019. We subsequently conducted a national, cross-sectional study of 497 participants with ALS and ALS variants through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National ALS Registry between July 2019 and December 2019. Participants reported on the prevalence and relative importance of 189 symptomatic questions representing 17 symptomatic themes that were previously identified through qualitative interviews. Analysis was performed to determine how age, sex, education, employment, time since onset of symptoms, location of symptom onset, feeding tube status, breathing status and speech status relate to symptom and symptomatic theme prevalence.FindingsSymptomatic themes with the highest prevalence in our sample were an inability to do activities (93.8%), fatigue (92.6%), problems with hands or fingers (87.7%), limitations with mobility or walking (86.7%), and a decreased performance in social situations (85.7%). Participants identified inability to do activities and limitations with mobility or walking as having the greatest overall effect on their lives.InterpretationIndividuals with ALS experience a variety of symptoms that affect their lives. The prevalence and importance of these symptoms differ among the ALS population. The most prevalent and important symptoms offer potential targets for improvements in future therapeutic interventions.FundingResearch funding was provided by ALS Association.

Project description:To evaluate patient experiences of specific aspects of haemodialysis care across several countries.Cross-sectional survey using the Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for End-Stage Renal Disease (CHOICE) questionnaire.Haemodialysis clinics within a single provider in Europe and South America.2748 adults treated in haemodialysis.The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with overall care. Secondary outcomes included patient experiences of individual aspects of dialysis care.2145 (78.1%) adults responded to the questionnaire. Fewer than half (46.5% (95% CI 44.5% to 48.6%)) rated their overall care as excellent. Global perceptions of care were uninfluenced by most respondent characteristics except age and depressive symptoms; older respondents were less critical of their care (adjusted OR for excellent rating 1.44 (1.01 to 2.04)) and those with depressive symptoms were less satisfied (0.56 (0.44 to 0.71)). Aspects of care that respondents most frequently ranked as excellent were staff attention to dialysis vascular access (54% (52% to 56%)); caring of nurses (53% (51% to 55%)); staff responsiveness to pain or discomfort (51% (49% to 53%)); caring, helpfulness and sensitivity of dialysis staff (50% (48% to 52%)); and ease of reaching dialysis staff by telephone (48% (46% to 50%)). The aspects of care least frequently ranked as excellent were information provided when choosing a dialysis modality (23% (21% to 25%)), ease of seeing a social worker (28% (24% to 32%)), information provided about dialysis (34% (32% to 36%)), accuracy of information from nephrologist (eg, about prognosis or likelihood of a kidney transplant; 37% (35% to 39%)) and accuracy of nephrologists' instructions (39% (36% to 41%)).Haemodialysis patients are least satisfied with the complex aspects of care. Patients' expectations for accurate information, prognosis, the likelihood of kidney transplantation and their options when choosing dialysis treatment need to be considered when planning healthcare research and practices.

Project description:Exploring variation in patients' experiences of involvement in treatment decision making can identify groups needing extra support, such as additional consultation time, when considering treatment options.We analysed data from the 2010 English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey, a national survey of all patients attending hospitals in England for cancer treatment over a 3-month period, to examine how experience of involvement in decisions about treatment varied between patients with 38 different primary cancers using logistic regression. We analysed responses from 41?411 patients to a single question examining patient experience of involvement in treatment decision making. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios of reporting the most positive experience between patients of different sociodemographic and tumour characteristics and explored the effects of adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, cancer type and hospital of treatment.Of the 41?441 respondents, 29?776 (72%) reported positive experiences of decision-making involvement. Younger patients reported substantially less positive experiences of involvement in decision making (adjusted OR=0.49 16-24 vs 65-74; P<0.001), as did ethnic minorities (adjusted ORs=0.52, 0.62 and 0.73 for Black, Chinese and Asian vs White patients, respectively; P<0.001). Experience varied considerably between patients with different cancers ( e.g., OR=0.52 for anal and 1.37 for melanoma vs colon cancer; P<0.001), with ovarian, myeloma, bladder and rectal cancer patients reporting substantially worse experiences compared with other patients with gynaecological, haematological, urological and colorectal cancers, respectively. Clustering of different patient groups within hospitals with outlying performance report scores could not account for observed differences.Efforts to improve involvement in treatment decision making can focus on those who report the worst experience, in particular younger patients, ethnic minorities and patients with rectal, ovarian, multiple myeloma and bladder cancer.

Project description:BackgroundWith advancements in and the evolution of the medical field, several methods and surgical techniques have been developed for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Generally, we can categorize these strategies into two broad groups: autologous reconstruction and implant-based reconstruction. This study aimed to analyze the satisfaction rate between these groups, considering age, timing of breast reconstruction, body mass index (BMI), major complications, and the need for radiotherapy or chemotherapy.Materials and methodsAll the patients who underwent a mastectomy and subsequent breast reconstruction surgery at our institution between August 1, 2013, and August 31, 2017, were invited to complete a BREAST-Q questionnaire. To compare the quality of life and complication rate between the autologous and implant-based reconstruction groups, data were collected from specific patients. All participants completed the Arabic version of the postoperative reconstruction module.ResultsAmong 61 patients, 43 (70.5%) completed the two domains of the BREAST-Q questionnaire, about the satisfaction with the implanted breast and satisfaction with the surgical outcome. These patients were divided into two groups: autologous (n = 21) and implant-based (n = 22) groups. The mean score of satisfaction with the implanted breast was 43.5 for the autologous group and 39.6 for the implant-based group. For the surgical outcome, the scores for the autologous and implant-based groups were 45.4 and 56.0, respectively. However, there was neither a statistical significance in the satisfaction with the implanted breast nor the surgical outcome between the two groups.ConclusionAlthough there are many different surgical techniques to reconstruct a breast after mastectomy, there is still no specific surgical method that is perfect or well-suited for all patients undergoing breast reconstruction surgery. In our study, we found that there was no significant difference in satisfaction between the ABR and IBR group.

Project description:BackgroundPast studies examining barriers to patient portal adoption have been conducted with a small number of patients and health care settings, limiting generalizability.ObjectiveThis study had the following two objectives: (1) to assess the prevalence of barriers to patient portal adoption among nonadopters and (2) to examine the association between nonadopter characteristics and reported barriers in a nationally representative sample.MethodsData from this study were obtained from the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey. We calculated descriptive statistics to determine the most prevalent barriers and conducted multiple variable logistic regression analysis to examine which characteristics were associated with the reported barriers.ResultsThe sample included 4815 individuals. Among these, 2828 individuals (58.73%) had not adopted a patient portal. Among the nonadopters (n=2828), the most prevalent barriers were patient preference for in-person communication (1810/2828, 64.00%), no perceived need for the patient portal (1385/2828, 48.97%), and lack of comfort and experience with computers (735/2828, 25.99%). Less commonly, individuals reported having no patient portal (650/2828, 22.98%), no internet access (650/2828, 22.98%), privacy concerns (594/2828, 21.00%), difficulty logging on (537/2828, 18.99%), and multiple patient portals (255/2828, 9.02%) as barriers. Men had significantly lower odds of indicating a preference for speaking directly to a provider compared with women (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.94; P=.01). Older age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02; P<.001), having a chronic condition (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.44-2.33; P<.001), and having an income lower than US $20,000 (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11-2.34; P=.01) were positively associated with indicating a preference for speaking directly to a provider. Hispanic individuals had significantly higher odds of indicating that they had no need for a patient portal (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.24-2.05; P<.001) compared with non-Hispanic individuals. Older individuals (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.06; P<.001), individuals with less than a high school diploma (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.79-5.53; P<.001), and individuals with a household income of less than US $20,000 (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.88-4.11; P<.001) had significantly higher odds of indicating that they were uncomfortable with a computer.ConclusionsThe most common barriers to patient portal adoption are preference for in-person communication, not having a need for the patient portal, and feeling uncomfortable with computers, which are barriers that are modifiable and can be intervened upon. Patient characteristics can help predict which patients are most likely to experience certain barriers to patient portal adoption. Further research is needed to tailor implementation approaches based on patients' needs and preferences.

Project description:Background & objectivesVarious oncoplastic techniques have emerged over the years to preserve breast cosmesis and symmetry without compromising the principles of tumor excision. One of the newer techniques for breast volume replacement to achieve symmetry and cosmesis is the use of fasciocutaneous pedicled chest wall perforator flaps or local perforator flaps (LPF). The objectives of this study were to document the details of the surgical procedure as well as patient-reported satisfaction and well-being following the procedure using a validated BREAST-Q tool among Pakistani women.Materials & methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2019 to February 2021 enrolling 25 female patients who underwent breast conservative surgery using LPF for breast tumors at The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi. Data related to the procedure was collected on a pre-designed proforma. Cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction were evaluated using 2 scales from BREAST-Q BCT domain version 2.0. The questionnaire was self-administered by the patients during their routine follow-up in the clinic. Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23. Mean (SD)/median (IQR) were computed for quantitative variables and frequency and percentages were calculated for qualitative variables. 2 sample t-test was applied. P-value ≤0.05 was considered significant.Results25 patients underwent LPF with a mean age of 47 ± 13.1 years. 8 LICAP, 7 AICAP, and 10 LTAP flaps were performed. Two postoperative complications of wound site erythema were encountered. 23 women were eligible for the BREAST-Q survey. Median (IQR) postoperative satisfaction with breasts and physical well-being chest (equivalent Rasch transformed score) was 100 (41) and 76 [18] respectively. We found high satisfaction with breasts and comparable physical well-being among Pakistani women after LPF surgeries.ConclusionLocal perforator flaps in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery are a good option showing high satisfaction with breasts and physical well-being in Pakistani women.