Dataset Information

Practices and pitfalls in medication adherence in hemodialysis settings - a focus-group study of health care professionals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medication nonadherence is common among patients with hemodialysis, leading to poorer patient outcomes. Health care professionals have an important role in assessing risk of nonadherence and intervening to support adherence. The aim of this study was to explore physicians' and nurses' current medication adherence practices in hemodialysis settings.

Method

A generic qualitative design with inductive content analysis and focus group methodology. Focus groups with health care professionals were conducted in four Nephrology Centers, representing three different regions of Denmark. An interview guide was developed in collaboration with 3 patient representatives.

Results

Six focus group interviews involving a total of forty-two health care professionals were conducted. Five main categories were identified; Laboratory tests are the "gold standard" for assessing adherence, suggesting that abnormal results motivated investigation of adherence, Varying practices for supporting adherence, alluding to the impact of individual clinician priority and preference on choice of adherence interventions, Unclear allocation of roles and responsibility, specifically referring to uncertainty in the delegation of roles between physicians and nurses, Navigating time and resource limitations, intimating the resources needed to support medication adherence and Suggestions for future strategies.

Conclusions

We suggest implementing systematic use of validated patient-reported outcome measures for assessing adherence and deprescribing tools to support adherence, as these instruments might identify the patients who are in most need of support and promote patient adherence to their prescribed medications. The findings also point to a need for interdisciplinary clarification of roles and responsibilities regarding medication adherence, with the aim of building a strong collaborative partnership between professions.

SUBMITTER: Mechta Nielsen T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8456602 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInadequate volume control may be a main contributor to poor survival and high mortality in hemodialysis patients. Bioimpedance measurement has the potential to improve fluid management, but several dialysis centers lack an agreed fluid management policy, and the method has not yet been implemented. Our aim was to identify renal care professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators for use of bioimpedance in clinical practice.MethodsQualitative data were collected through four focus group interviews with 24 renal care professionals: dieticians, nephrologists and nurses, recruited voluntarily from a nation-wide selection of hemodialysis centers, having access to a bioimpedance-device. The participants were connected to each other and a moderator via equipment for telemedicine and the sessions were recorded. The interviews were semi-structured, focusing on the participants' perceptions of use of bioimpedance in clinical practice. Thematic content analysis was performed in consecutive steps, and data were extracted by employing an inductive, interactive, comparative process.ResultsSeveral barriers and facilitators to the use of bioimpedance in clinical practice were identified, and a multilevel approach to examining barriers and incentives for change was found to be applicable to the ideas and categories that arose from the data. The determinants were categorized on five levels, and the different themes of the levels illustrated with quotations from the focus groups participants.ConclusionsDeterminants for use of bioimpedance were identified on five levels: 1) the innovation itself, 2) the individual professional, 3) the patient, 4) the social context and 5) the organizational context. Barriers were identified in the areas of credibility, awareness, knowledge, self-efficacy, care processes, organizational structures and regulations. Facilitators were identified in the areas of the innovation's attractiveness, advantages in practice, and collaboration. Motivation, team processes and organizational capacities appeared as both barriers and facilitators.

Project description:Little is known about how health care professionals deal with ethical challenges in mental health care, especially when not making use of a formal ethics support service. Understanding this is important in order to be able to support the professionals, to improve the quality of care, and to know in which way future ethics support services might be helpful.Within a project on ethics, coercion and psychiatry, we executed a focus group interview study at seven departments with 65 health care professionals and managers. We performed a systematic and open qualitative analysis focusing on the question: 'How do health care professionals deal with ethical challenges?' We deliberately did not present a fixed definition or theory of ethical challenge.We categorized relevant topics into three subthemes: 1) Identification and presence of ethical challenges; 2) What do the participants actually do when dealing with an ethical challenge?; and 3) The significance of facing ethical challenges. Results varied from dealing with ethical challenges every day and appreciating it as a positive part of working in mental health care, to experiencing ethical challenges as paralyzing burdens that cause a lot of stress and hinder constructive team cooperation. Some participants reported that they do not have the time and that they lack a specific methodology. Quite often, informal and retrospective ad-hoc meetings in small teams were organized. Participants struggled with what makes a challenge an ethical challenge and whether it differs from a professional challenge. When dealing with ethical challenges, a number of participants experienced difficulties handling disagreement in a constructive way. Furthermore, some participants plead for more attention for underlying intentions and justifications of treatment decisions.The interviewed health care professionals dealt with ethical challenges in many different ways, often in an informal, implicit and reactive manner. This study revealed nine different categories of what health care professionals implicitly or explicitly conceive as 'ethical challenges'. Future research should focus on how ethics support services, such as ethics reflection groups or moral case deliberation, can be of help with respect to dealing with ethical challenges and value disagreements in a constructive way.

Project description:BackgroundDifferences of Sex Development (DSD) are congenital conditions where the chromosomal, gonadal and anatomical sex characteristics do not strictly belong to male or female categories, or that belong to both at the same time. Surgical interventions for individuals with DSD remain controversial, among affected individuals, caregivers, and health-care providers. A lack of evidence in support of, for deferring, or for avoiding surgery complicates the decision-making process. This study explores Norwegian health-care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives on decision-making in DSD-related surgeries and the dilemmas they are facing in this process.MethodsFocus group interviews with 14 HCPs integrated into or collaborating with multidisciplinary DSD teams were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsTwo overarching dilemmas shed light on the intricate considerations and challenges that HCPs encounter when guiding affected individuals and caregivers through surgical decision-making processes in the context of DSD. The first theme describes how shared decision-making was found to be influenced by fear of stigma and balancing the interplay between concepts of normality, personal experiences and external expectations when navigating the child's and caregivers' needs. The second theme illuminated dilemmas due to a lack of evidence-based practice. The core concepts within each theme were the dilemmas health-care professionals face during consultations with caregivers and affected individuals.ConclusionHCPs were aware of the controversies with DSD-related surgeries. However, they struggled to reconcile knowledge with parents' wishes for surgery and faced dilemmas making decisions in the best interests of the child. This study draws attention to the benefits of increased knowledge on the consequences of performing or withholding surgery as well as incorporating tools enabling shared decision-making between HCPs and affected individuals/caregivers.