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:Inadequate 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.Qualitative 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.Several 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.Determinants 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:BackgroundBreast cancer (BC) and related treatment are associated with the risk of developing a wide range of persistent disabling impairments. Despite extensive research in the field and an enhanced focus on BC rehabilitation, up to 34-43% of these patients are at risk of developing chronic distress. In addition, it is known that these patients repeatedly report unmet needs, which are strongly associated with reduced quality of life. However, despite knowledge that patients' needs for support during BC rehabilitation varies greatly, individualized rehabilitation is often lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) experiences of current rehabilitation practice and describe current barriers and facilitators for individualized rehabilitation for patients following BC treatment.MethodsA total of 19 HCPs were included, representing various professions in BC care/rehabilitation within surgical, oncological and specialized cancer rehabilitation units at a university hospital in Sweden. Five semi structured focus group interviews were conducted and inductively analysed using conventional qualitative content analysis.ResultsThree categories were captured: (1) varying attitudes towards rehabilitation; (2) incongruence in how to identify and meet rehabilitation needs and (3) suboptimal collaboration during cancer treatment. The results showed a lack of consensus in how to optimize individualized rehabilitation. It also illuminated facilitators for individualized rehabilitation in terms of extensive competence related to long-term experience of working with patients with BC care/rehabilitation. Further, the analysis exposed barriers such as a great complexity in promoting individualized rehabilitation in a medically and treatment-driven health care system, which lacked structure and knowledge, and overarching collaboration for rehabilitation.ConclusionThis study suggests that the cancer trajectory is medically and treatment-driven and that rehabilitation plays a marginal role in today's BC trajectory. It also reveals that structures for systematic screening for needs, evidence-based guidelines for individualized rehabilitation interventions and structures for referring patients for advanced rehabilitation are lacking. To enable optimal and individualized recovery for BC patients', rehabilitation needs to be an integrated part of the cancer trajectory and run in parallel with diagnostics and treatment.