在尖端-基于问卷的评估实施枢纽到英国的做法。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Sebastian Spencer, Samantha Hunter, Sunil Bhandari
{"title":"在尖端-基于问卷的评估实施枢纽到英国的做法。","authors":"Sebastian Spencer, Samantha Hunter, Sunil Bhandari","doi":"10.1111/sdi.13250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anemia is a common occurrence in people with chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. Intravenous administration of iron is standard treatment for people undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. However, until the recent PIVOTAL randomized control trial, there was uncertainty around clinically effective regimens. This study found that among incident, people receiving hemodialysis in the first year, a proactive high-dose intravenous iron regimen was superior to reactive low-dose regimen, leading to reduced mortality and cardiac events. Our study investigated whether the research and guidelines have been successfully implemented into clinical care across the United Kingdom, identified barriers experienced, and explored our local hemodialysis population's awareness of the treatment they are receiving.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a convenient sample of UK-based kidney physicians working in the NHS and local people receiving hemodialysis. Two preconceived, standardized questionnaires were designed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty physicians responded. Of these, 40% had implemented a proactive iron protocol, whereas 37.5% had not. Respondents acknowledged concerns about doses of iron and the need for local protocols. Thirty-seven patients responded to the patient questionnaire within our own hemodialysis unit. Fifty-one percent of patients reported to be receiving iron supplementation, of which 84% stated it was intravenous through their dialysis machine.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We have not observed a paradigm shift in clinical practice and identified poor patient understanding of their treatment. Strategies to overcome barriers are necessary to introduce treatments that offer both clinical advantages and cost savings. Eliminating futile practice is challenging due to departmental prioritization and economic considerations. Traditionally, efforts to improve care are targeted towards newer therapies; however, there is an opportunity to improve implementation of current evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":21675,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Dialysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Cusp-A Questionnaire-Based Assessment of Implementing PIVOTAL Into UK Practice.\",\"authors\":\"Sebastian Spencer, Samantha Hunter, Sunil Bhandari\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/sdi.13250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anemia is a common occurrence in people with chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. Intravenous administration of iron is standard treatment for people undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. However, until the recent PIVOTAL randomized control trial, there was uncertainty around clinically effective regimens. This study found that among incident, people receiving hemodialysis in the first year, a proactive high-dose intravenous iron regimen was superior to reactive low-dose regimen, leading to reduced mortality and cardiac events. Our study investigated whether the research and guidelines have been successfully implemented into clinical care across the United Kingdom, identified barriers experienced, and explored our local hemodialysis population's awareness of the treatment they are receiving.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a convenient sample of UK-based kidney physicians working in the NHS and local people receiving hemodialysis. Two preconceived, standardized questionnaires were designed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty physicians responded. Of these, 40% had implemented a proactive iron protocol, whereas 37.5% had not. Respondents acknowledged concerns about doses of iron and the need for local protocols. Thirty-seven patients responded to the patient questionnaire within our own hemodialysis unit. Fifty-one percent of patients reported to be receiving iron supplementation, of which 84% stated it was intravenous through their dialysis machine.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We have not observed a paradigm shift in clinical practice and identified poor patient understanding of their treatment. Strategies to overcome barriers are necessary to introduce treatments that offer both clinical advantages and cost savings. Eliminating futile practice is challenging due to departmental prioritization and economic considerations. Traditionally, efforts to improve care are targeted towards newer therapies; however, there is an opportunity to improve implementation of current evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in Dialysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in Dialysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.13250\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Dialysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.13250","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:贫血是慢性肾脏疾病和终末期肾脏疾病患者的常见病。静脉给铁是维持性血液透析患者的标准治疗方法。然而,直到最近的PIVOTAL随机对照试验,临床上有效的治疗方案仍存在不确定性。本研究发现,在第一年接受血液透析的患者中,主动高剂量静脉注射铁方案优于反应性低剂量方案,导致死亡率和心脏事件降低。我们的研究调查了研究和指南是否已经成功地实施到整个英国的临床护理中,确定了经历的障碍,并探讨了我们当地血液透析人群对他们正在接受的治疗的认识。方法:我们进行了一项横断面调查,使用在英国NHS工作的肾脏医生和当地接受血液透析的人的方便样本。设计了两份先入为主的标准化问卷。结果:40名医生回应。其中,40%的患者实施了主动铁疗法,而37.5%的患者没有。受访者承认对铁的剂量和当地协议的必要性感到担忧。37名患者回答了我们血液透析部门的患者问卷。51%的患者报告接受了铁补充剂,其中84%的患者表示通过透析机进行静脉注射。结论:我们没有观察到临床实践中的范式转变,并确定患者对其治疗的理解较差。为了引进既能提供临床优势又能节省费用的治疗方法,克服障碍的战略是必要的。由于部门的优先次序和经济考虑,消除无用的做法是具有挑战性的。传统上,改善护理的努力以更新的疗法为目标;然而,有机会改进现有证据的实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the Cusp-A Questionnaire-Based Assessment of Implementing PIVOTAL Into UK Practice.

Background: Anemia is a common occurrence in people with chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. Intravenous administration of iron is standard treatment for people undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. However, until the recent PIVOTAL randomized control trial, there was uncertainty around clinically effective regimens. This study found that among incident, people receiving hemodialysis in the first year, a proactive high-dose intravenous iron regimen was superior to reactive low-dose regimen, leading to reduced mortality and cardiac events. Our study investigated whether the research and guidelines have been successfully implemented into clinical care across the United Kingdom, identified barriers experienced, and explored our local hemodialysis population's awareness of the treatment they are receiving.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a convenient sample of UK-based kidney physicians working in the NHS and local people receiving hemodialysis. Two preconceived, standardized questionnaires were designed.

Results: Forty physicians responded. Of these, 40% had implemented a proactive iron protocol, whereas 37.5% had not. Respondents acknowledged concerns about doses of iron and the need for local protocols. Thirty-seven patients responded to the patient questionnaire within our own hemodialysis unit. Fifty-one percent of patients reported to be receiving iron supplementation, of which 84% stated it was intravenous through their dialysis machine.

Conclusions: We have not observed a paradigm shift in clinical practice and identified poor patient understanding of their treatment. Strategies to overcome barriers are necessary to introduce treatments that offer both clinical advantages and cost savings. Eliminating futile practice is challenging due to departmental prioritization and economic considerations. Traditionally, efforts to improve care are targeted towards newer therapies; however, there is an opportunity to improve implementation of current evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Seminars in Dialysis
Seminars in Dialysis 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
91
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Seminars in Dialysis is a bimonthly publication focusing exclusively on cutting-edge clinical aspects of dialysis therapy. Besides publishing papers by the most respected names in the field of dialysis, the Journal has unique useful features, all designed to keep you current: -Fellows Forum -Dialysis rounds -Editorials -Opinions -Briefly noted -Summary and Comment -Guest Edited Issues -Special Articles Virtually everything you read in Seminars in Dialysis is written or solicited by the editors after choosing the most effective of nine different editorial styles and formats. They know that facts, speculations, ''how-to-do-it'' information, opinions, and news reports all play important roles in your education and the patient care you provide. Alternate issues of the journal are guest edited and focus on a single clinical topic in dialysis.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信