Shared Hemodialysis Care Practice Patterns and Their Association With Shared Decision-Making in the United Kingdom.

IF 1.2
Kevin Breen, Shalini Santhakumaran, Martin Wilkie, Neill Duncan, Tania Barnes, Georgina Hamill, Catherine Stannard, Amanda Busby, Paul Bristow, Udaya Udayaraj
{"title":"Shared Hemodialysis Care Practice Patterns and Their Association With Shared Decision-Making in the United Kingdom.","authors":"Kevin Breen, Shalini Santhakumaran, Martin Wilkie, Neill Duncan, Tania Barnes, Georgina Hamill, Catherine Stannard, Amanda Busby, Paul Bristow, Udaya Udayaraj","doi":"10.1111/hdi.70104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Shared hemodialysis care, or \"shared care,\" empowers in-center hemodialysis patients to undertake some dialysis-related tasks. Although its benefits are increasingly recognized, data on shared care is not routinely reported, and its impact on patient experience is less studied. Shared decision-making-a key component of patient experience-is consistently rated poorly by renal patients. Using data from the UK Kidney Patient Reported Experience Measure survey, we examined the variation in shared care offered across 67 UK kidney centers and assessed its association with shared decision-making scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Shared care offer and acceptance was assessed by a single survey question. A measure of shared decision-making was derived from patient responses to three questions (scored between 1 = low and 7 = high). Associations between shared care and shared decision-making scores were analyzed at an individual level using linear mixed models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analyzes included 6861 patients. 53% of respondents were offered shared care (47% in 2022), with rates from 13% to 93% between centers. Shared care was more likely to be offered to those aged 31-55 years, ethnic minorities and in satellite units. Those offered shared care gave higher scores for each question on shared decision-making, with a mean increase of 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.70, p < 0.0001) across all questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Shared care participation in the UK is increasing but there remains considerable variation between centers with inequitable access to the opportunities it brings according to patient age, ethnicity and dialysis unit location. This study is the first to demonstrate a positive association between shared care and shared decision-making, suggesting that offering shared care can support shared decision-making and improve patient experience of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":94027,"journal":{"name":"Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-22","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.70104","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

Background: Shared hemodialysis care, or "shared care," empowers in-center hemodialysis patients to undertake some dialysis-related tasks. Although its benefits are increasingly recognized, data on shared care is not routinely reported, and its impact on patient experience is less studied. Shared decision-making-a key component of patient experience-is consistently rated poorly by renal patients. Using data from the UK Kidney Patient Reported Experience Measure survey, we examined the variation in shared care offered across 67 UK kidney centers and assessed its association with shared decision-making scores.

Methods: Shared care offer and acceptance was assessed by a single survey question. A measure of shared decision-making was derived from patient responses to three questions (scored between 1 = low and 7 = high). Associations between shared care and shared decision-making scores were analyzed at an individual level using linear mixed models.

Results: Analyzes included 6861 patients. 53% of respondents were offered shared care (47% in 2022), with rates from 13% to 93% between centers. Shared care was more likely to be offered to those aged 31-55 years, ethnic minorities and in satellite units. Those offered shared care gave higher scores for each question on shared decision-making, with a mean increase of 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.70, p < 0.0001) across all questions.

Conclusions: Shared care participation in the UK is increasing but there remains considerable variation between centers with inequitable access to the opportunities it brings according to patient age, ethnicity and dialysis unit location. This study is the first to demonstrate a positive association between shared care and shared decision-making, suggesting that offering shared care can support shared decision-making and improve patient experience of care.

共享血液透析护理实践模式及其与共同决策在英国的关联。
背景:共享血液透析护理,或“共享护理”,使中心血液透析患者承担一些与透析相关的任务。尽管共享医疗的好处越来越得到认可,但关于共享医疗的数据并没有常规报道,其对患者体验的影响也很少被研究。共同决策——患者体验的关键组成部分——一直被肾病患者评价得很差。使用来自英国肾脏患者报告经验测量调查的数据,我们检查了67个英国肾脏中心提供的共享护理的差异,并评估了其与共享决策得分的关系。方法:采用单一问卷调查的方法对共同护理的提供和接受程度进行评估。共同决策的衡量来源于患者对三个问题的回答(得分在1 =低到7 =高之间)。使用线性混合模型在个体水平上分析了共同护理和共同决策得分之间的关联。结果:纳入6861例患者。53%的受访者获得了共享医疗服务(2022年为47%),中心之间的比例从13%到93%不等。31-55岁的人、少数民族和附属单位更有可能提供共同护理。那些提供共享护理的人在共同决策的每个问题上得分较高,平均增加0.61分(95% CI 0.51-0.70, p)。结论:英国共享护理的参与正在增加,但根据患者年龄、种族和透析单位位置的不同,中心之间仍然存在相当大的差异,无法公平地获得共享护理带来的机会。本研究首次证明了共享护理与共享决策之间的正相关关系,表明提供共享护理可以支持共享决策,改善患者的护理体验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书