Kristina K Knudsen, Carolina V Adrian, Mathilde H Jensen, Siw Ilsøe, Jeanett Rugaard, Selina Emilie Poulsen, Krista Dybtved Kjærgaard, Jeanette Finderup
{"title":"Developing and Evaluating a Home Hemodialysis Training Program-A Quality Improvement Study.","authors":"Kristina K Knudsen, Carolina V Adrian, Mathilde H Jensen, Siw Ilsøe, Jeanett Rugaard, Selina Emilie Poulsen, Krista Dybtved Kjærgaard, Jeanette Finderup","doi":"10.1111/hdi.13252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In 2018, our home hemodialysis training program required 3-4 months to complete, with sessions lasting 4 h, three times a week. Due to the time commitment, some patients who preferred home hemodialysis decided on alternative dialysis modalities. This study aimed to (1) identify potential improvements to Training Program 1.0, (2) develop Training Program 2.0, and (3) assess the outcomes of Training Program 2.0.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We reviewed literature, conducted focus groups with home hemodialysis nurses in Helsinki, Finland, and interviewed patients who participated in Training Program 1.0. Training Program 2.0 was developed in collaboration with patients and clinicians, using a \"learning by doing\" approach. Evaluation included both qualitative interviews and quantitative analysis of patient records.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Patients' feedback, aligned with the literature and Helsinki's program, led to six major changes: (1) more frequent training sessions, (2) earlier introduction of self-cannulation, (3) a permanent team of training nurses, (4) a shorter and more structured program, (5) individualized weekly schedules, and (6) clearer instructions. Training frequency increased to four sessions per week, with self-cannulation introduced in the second week. The quantitative results showed a trend toward a reduction in the number of training sessions and total training time. The qualitative data indicated a marked improvement in patient experience.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The modifications in Training Program 2.0 created a more effective learning environment, as evidenced by improved patient satisfaction. While quantitative measures did not show significant reductions in training time, the qualitative improvements suggest that these changes positively impact the patient experience, aligning with findings from other home hemodialysis studies. These results underscore the importance of tailoring training programs to patient needs and preferences, contributing to better engagement and potentially higher adoption of home hemodialysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":94027,"journal":{"name":"Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/hdi.13252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: In 2018, our home hemodialysis training program required 3-4 months to complete, with sessions lasting 4 h, three times a week. Due to the time commitment, some patients who preferred home hemodialysis decided on alternative dialysis modalities. This study aimed to (1) identify potential improvements to Training Program 1.0, (2) develop Training Program 2.0, and (3) assess the outcomes of Training Program 2.0.
Method: We reviewed literature, conducted focus groups with home hemodialysis nurses in Helsinki, Finland, and interviewed patients who participated in Training Program 1.0. Training Program 2.0 was developed in collaboration with patients and clinicians, using a "learning by doing" approach. Evaluation included both qualitative interviews and quantitative analysis of patient records.
Findings: Patients' feedback, aligned with the literature and Helsinki's program, led to six major changes: (1) more frequent training sessions, (2) earlier introduction of self-cannulation, (3) a permanent team of training nurses, (4) a shorter and more structured program, (5) individualized weekly schedules, and (6) clearer instructions. Training frequency increased to four sessions per week, with self-cannulation introduced in the second week. The quantitative results showed a trend toward a reduction in the number of training sessions and total training time. The qualitative data indicated a marked improvement in patient experience.
Discussion: The modifications in Training Program 2.0 created a more effective learning environment, as evidenced by improved patient satisfaction. While quantitative measures did not show significant reductions in training time, the qualitative improvements suggest that these changes positively impact the patient experience, aligning with findings from other home hemodialysis studies. These results underscore the importance of tailoring training programs to patient needs and preferences, contributing to better engagement and potentially higher adoption of home hemodialysis.