Chye Chung Gan, Suh Chien Pang, Ru Yu Tan, Alvin Ren Kwang Tng, Chee Wooi Tan, Lydia Wei Wei Lim, Hsien Ts'ung Tay, Kun Da Zhuang, Li Choo Ng, Kiang Hiong Tay, Tze Tec Chong, Chieh Suai Tan
{"title":"针对血液透析通路功能障碍患者的多学科护理模式的有效性和可持续性。","authors":"Chye Chung Gan, Suh Chien Pang, Ru Yu Tan, Alvin Ren Kwang Tng, Chee Wooi Tan, Lydia Wei Wei Lim, Hsien Ts'ung Tay, Kun Da Zhuang, Li Choo Ng, Kiang Hiong Tay, Tze Tec Chong, Chieh Suai Tan","doi":"10.1177/11297298241293826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A multidisciplinary care model involving the interventional radiologist, vascular surgeon, interventional nephrologist, renal advanced nurse practitioner, and renal coordinators was implemented to improve the care for the patient admitted with dysfunctional hemodialysis access. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of this multidisciplinary care model.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A dedicated interventional nephrology suite was established to perform endovascular procedures for patients admitted with hemodialysis access dysfunction via the emergency department of the hospital. We retrospectively collected data from electronic medical records 1-year before and after the implementation (April 2015). Outcome measures include waiting time for intervention, length of stays (LOS), number of dialysis catheter insertions before the intervention, number of inpatient dialysis required, and success rates of the interventions. The waiting time for intervention and LOS was tracked over the next 3 years to determine the sustainability of the care model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight hundred eighty-one endovascular interventions (314 angioplasties, 567 thrombolysis) were performed on 554 patients. Post-implementation, a greater proportion of intervention was performed within 24 h (238 (50.2%) vs 70 (17.2%), <i>p</i> < 0.001) with lesser proportion of patients requiring bridging hemodialysis via temporary catheter, 156 (32.9%) versus 215 (52.8%), <i>p</i> < 0.001. A shorter median LOS and days-to-intervention were reported, 3 (IQR 2-6) versus 5 days (IQR 3-8), <i>p</i> < 0.001 and 1 (IQR 1-2) versus 3 days (IQR 2-4), <i>p</i> < 0.001 respectively. Less hemodialysis session/patient required, 2 (IQR 1-3) versus 3 (IQR 2-4), <i>p</i> < 0.001. The procedural success rate was greater, 440 (92.8%) versus 355 (87.2%), <i>p</i> = 0.020. Three years following implementation, the proportion of patients who received intervention within 24 h and were discharged within 48 h was reported to be persistently greater, 43% versus 13%, <i>p</i> < 0.001, and 27% versus 6%, <i>p</i> < 0.001 respectively.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This multi-disciplinary collaboration demonstrated a sustainable care model in improving the delivery of healthcare services for patients with dysfunctional hemodialysis access.</p>","PeriodicalId":56113,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Access","volume":" ","pages":"1604-1609"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness and sustainability of a multidisciplinary care model for patients with hemodialysis access dysfunction.\",\"authors\":\"Chye Chung Gan, Suh Chien Pang, Ru Yu Tan, Alvin Ren Kwang Tng, Chee Wooi Tan, Lydia Wei Wei Lim, Hsien Ts'ung Tay, Kun Da Zhuang, Li Choo Ng, Kiang Hiong Tay, Tze Tec Chong, Chieh Suai Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11297298241293826\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A multidisciplinary care model involving the interventional radiologist, vascular surgeon, interventional nephrologist, renal advanced nurse practitioner, and renal coordinators was implemented to improve the care for the patient admitted with dysfunctional hemodialysis access. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of this multidisciplinary care model.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A dedicated interventional nephrology suite was established to perform endovascular procedures for patients admitted with hemodialysis access dysfunction via the emergency department of the hospital. We retrospectively collected data from electronic medical records 1-year before and after the implementation (April 2015). Outcome measures include waiting time for intervention, length of stays (LOS), number of dialysis catheter insertions before the intervention, number of inpatient dialysis required, and success rates of the interventions. The waiting time for intervention and LOS was tracked over the next 3 years to determine the sustainability of the care model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight hundred eighty-one endovascular interventions (314 angioplasties, 567 thrombolysis) were performed on 554 patients. Post-implementation, a greater proportion of intervention was performed within 24 h (238 (50.2%) vs 70 (17.2%), <i>p</i> < 0.001) with lesser proportion of patients requiring bridging hemodialysis via temporary catheter, 156 (32.9%) versus 215 (52.8%), <i>p</i> < 0.001. A shorter median LOS and days-to-intervention were reported, 3 (IQR 2-6) versus 5 days (IQR 3-8), <i>p</i> < 0.001 and 1 (IQR 1-2) versus 3 days (IQR 2-4), <i>p</i> < 0.001 respectively. Less hemodialysis session/patient required, 2 (IQR 1-3) versus 3 (IQR 2-4), <i>p</i> < 0.001. The procedural success rate was greater, 440 (92.8%) versus 355 (87.2%), <i>p</i> = 0.020. Three years following implementation, the proportion of patients who received intervention within 24 h and were discharged within 48 h was reported to be persistently greater, 43% versus 13%, <i>p</i> < 0.001, and 27% versus 6%, <i>p</i> < 0.001 respectively.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This multi-disciplinary collaboration demonstrated a sustainable care model in improving the delivery of healthcare services for patients with dysfunctional hemodialysis access.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vascular Access\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1604-1609\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vascular Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298241293826\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298241293826","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:为改善对血液透析通路功能障碍患者的护理,实施了由介入放射科医生、血管外科医生、介入肾科医生、肾脏高级执业护士和肾脏协调员共同参与的多学科护理模式。本研究旨在评估这种多学科护理模式的有效性和可持续性:方法:医院设立了专门的介入肾脏病学室,为通过急诊科入院的血液透析通路功能障碍患者实施血管内手术。我们从电子病历中回顾性收集了实施前后一年(2015 年 4 月)的数据。结果指标包括介入治疗的等待时间、住院时间(LOS)、介入治疗前插入透析导管的次数、需要住院透析的次数以及介入治疗的成功率。在接下来的三年中,对介入治疗的等待时间和住院时间进行跟踪,以确定护理模式的可持续性:结果:为 554 名患者实施了 881 次血管内介入治疗(314 次血管成形术,567 次溶栓)。实施后,在 24 小时内进行介入治疗的比例更高(238 例(50.2%)对 70 例(17.2%),P P P P = 0.020)。据报道,实施三年后,在 24 小时内接受干预并在 48 小时内出院的患者比例持续上升,分别为 43% 对 13%,p p 讨论:这种多学科合作展示了一种可持续的护理模式,可改善为血液透析通路功能障碍患者提供的医疗服务。
Effectiveness and sustainability of a multidisciplinary care model for patients with hemodialysis access dysfunction.
Background: A multidisciplinary care model involving the interventional radiologist, vascular surgeon, interventional nephrologist, renal advanced nurse practitioner, and renal coordinators was implemented to improve the care for the patient admitted with dysfunctional hemodialysis access. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of this multidisciplinary care model.
Method: A dedicated interventional nephrology suite was established to perform endovascular procedures for patients admitted with hemodialysis access dysfunction via the emergency department of the hospital. We retrospectively collected data from electronic medical records 1-year before and after the implementation (April 2015). Outcome measures include waiting time for intervention, length of stays (LOS), number of dialysis catheter insertions before the intervention, number of inpatient dialysis required, and success rates of the interventions. The waiting time for intervention and LOS was tracked over the next 3 years to determine the sustainability of the care model.
Results: Eight hundred eighty-one endovascular interventions (314 angioplasties, 567 thrombolysis) were performed on 554 patients. Post-implementation, a greater proportion of intervention was performed within 24 h (238 (50.2%) vs 70 (17.2%), p < 0.001) with lesser proportion of patients requiring bridging hemodialysis via temporary catheter, 156 (32.9%) versus 215 (52.8%), p < 0.001. A shorter median LOS and days-to-intervention were reported, 3 (IQR 2-6) versus 5 days (IQR 3-8), p < 0.001 and 1 (IQR 1-2) versus 3 days (IQR 2-4), p < 0.001 respectively. Less hemodialysis session/patient required, 2 (IQR 1-3) versus 3 (IQR 2-4), p < 0.001. The procedural success rate was greater, 440 (92.8%) versus 355 (87.2%), p = 0.020. Three years following implementation, the proportion of patients who received intervention within 24 h and were discharged within 48 h was reported to be persistently greater, 43% versus 13%, p < 0.001, and 27% versus 6%, p < 0.001 respectively.
Discussion: This multi-disciplinary collaboration demonstrated a sustainable care model in improving the delivery of healthcare services for patients with dysfunctional hemodialysis access.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Vascular Access (JVA) is issued six times per year; it considers the publication of original manuscripts dealing with clinical and laboratory investigations in the fast growing field of vascular access. In addition reviews, case reports and clinical trials are welcome, as well as papers dedicated to more practical aspects covering new devices and techniques.
All contributions, coming from all over the world, undergo the peer-review process.
The Journal of Vascular Access is divided into independent sections, each led by Editors of the highest scientific level:
• Dialysis
• Oncology
• Interventional radiology
• Nutrition
• Nursing
• Intensive care
Correspondence related to published papers is also welcome.