FreshRSS

🔒
☐ ☆ ✇ Journal of Clinical Nursing

Shared decision making for patients with kidney failure to improve end‐of‐life care: Development of the DESIRE intervention

Abstract

Aim

To describe the development of a shared decision making intervention for planning end-of-life care for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals in kidney services.

Background

End-of-life care conversations within standard disease management consultations are challenging for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. End-of-life care planning is about making difficult decisions in advance, which is why health professionals need shared decision making skills to be able to initiate end-of-life conversations. Health professionals report needing more skills to raise the issue of end-of-life care options within consultations and patients want to be able to discuss issues important to them about future care plans.

Methods

The development design was guided by the UK Medical Research Council's framework and a user-centred approach was applied. Four workshops were conducted with end users. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication for Population Health and Policy interventions was used to shape which questions needed to be answered through the workshops and to present the intervention. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) criteria set the standards to be achieved.

Results

Areas considered significant to a shared decision making intervention were training of health professionals, conversations about end-of-life care, planning and evaluation of the decisions, reporting decisions in health records and repetition of consultation. The development process went through 14 iterations.

Conclusion

An intervention named DESIRE was developed that comprises: (1) a training programme for health professionals; (2) shared decision making conversations; and (3) a patient decision aid. The intervention met 30 out of 33 IPDAS criteria.

Implications for practice

DESIRE is intended to support shared decision making about planning end-of-life care among patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. The study provides important tools for the stakeholders engaged that can be used within different models of care.

Impact

What problem did the study address?

International guidelines recommend health professionals involve patients with kidney failure in making decisions about end-of-life care, but there is variation in how this is implemented within and across kidney services. Furthermore, patients, relatives and health professionals find it challenging to initiate conversations about end-of-life care.

What were the main findings?

The study resulted in the development of a complex intervention, called DESIRE, about shared decision making and planning end-of-life care for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals in kidney services, including a training programme for health professionals, shared decision making conversations and a patient decision aid.

Where and on whom will the research have an impact?

The research contributes a shared decision making intervention to patients in the later stage of kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. We believe that the DESIRE intervention could be introduced during consultations with health professionals at an earlier stage of the patient's illness trajectory, as well as being applied to other chronic diseases.

Reporting Method

This intervention development research is reported according to the GUIDance for the rEporting of intervention Development (GUIDED) checklist and the DEVELOPTOOLS Reporting Checklist.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients, relatives and health professionals have been involved throughout the research process as part of the research team and advisory board. For this study, the advisory board has particularly contributed to the development process of the DESIRE intervention by actively participating in the four workshops, in the iterations between the workshops and in the preparation of the manuscript.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Non-operative versus operative treatment of suprasyndesmotic ankle fractures: protocol for a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Por: Saatvedt · O. · Riiser · M. · Frihagen · F. · Figved · W. · Madsen · J. E. · Molund · M. · Furunes · H. — Enero 8th 2024 at 17:52
Introduction

Surgery is widely recognised as the treatment of choice for suprasyndesmotic ankle fractures, because of the assumption that these injuries yield instability of the ankle joint. Stability assessment of ankle fractures using weightbearing radiographs is now used regularly to guide the treatment of transsyndesmotic and infrasyndesmotic ankle fractures. Patients with a congruent ankle joint on weightbearing radiographs can be treated non-operatively with excellent results. Weightbearing radiographs are, however, rarely performed on suprasyndesmotic fractures due to the assumed unstable nature of these fractures. If weightbearing radiographs can be used to identify suprasyndesmotic fractures suitable for non-operative treatment, we may save patients from the potential burdens of surgery.

Our aim is to compare the efficacy of operative and non-operative treatment of patients with suprasyndesmotic ankle fractures that reduce on weightbearing radiographs.

Methods and analysis

A non-inferiority randomised controlled trial involving 120 patients will be conducted. A total of 120 patients with suprasyndesmotic ankle fractures with an initial radiographic medial clear space of

Ethics and dissemination

The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research South East, group A (permission number: 169307), has granted ethics approval. The results of this study will provide valuable insights for developing future diagnostic and treatment strategies for a common fracture type. The findings will be shared through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at conferences.

Trial registration number

NCT04615650.

☐ ☆ ✇ Journal of Advanced Nursing

Decisional needs in people with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals about end‐of‐life care options: A qualitative interview study

Abstract

Aim

To investigate the decisional needs in Denmark of people with kidney failure, relatives, and health professionals when planning end-of-life care.

Design

A qualitative interview study.

Methods

Individual semi-structured interviews were carried out with people with kidney failure, relatives and health professionals from November 2021 to June 2022. Malterud's systematic text condensation was used to analyse transcripts.

Results

A total of 13 patients, 10 relatives, and 12 health professionals were interviewed. Overall, four concepts were agreed on: (1) Talking about end of life is difficult, (2) Patients and relatives need more knowledge and information, (3) Health professionals need more tools and training, and (4) Experiencing busyness as a barrier to conversations about end of life.

Conclusion

People with kidney failure, relatives, and health professionals shared certain decisional needs while also having some different decisional needs about end-of-life care. To meet these various needs, end-of-life conversations should be systematic and organized according to the patients' needs and wishes.

Impact

Non-systematic end-of-life care decision-making processes limit patients' involvement. Patients and relatives need more knowledge about end-of-life care, and health professionals need more competences and time to discuss decisional needs. A shared decision-making intervention for people with kidney failure when making end-of-life care decisions will be developed.

Reporting Method

This empirical qualitative research is reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients, relatives, and health professionals have been involved throughout the research process as part of the research team and advisory board. The patients are people with kidney failure and the relatives are relatives of a person with kidney failure. For this study, the advisory board has particularly contributed to the validation of the invitation letter for participation, the interview guides and the preparation of the manuscript.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Stakeholders perspectives on clinical trial acceptability and approach to consent within a limited timeframe: a mixed methods study

Por: Deja · E. · Donohue · C. · Semple · M. G. · Woolfall · K. · for the BESS Investigators · Semple · McNamara · Allen · Fowler · Barker · Peak · Miert · Best · Donohue · Jones · Moitt · Price · Williamson · Clark · Madsen · Dawson · Summers · Deja · Woolfall · Osaghae · Turner · Panchal — Enero 2nd 2024 at 16:31
Objectives

The Bronchiolitis Endotracheal Surfactant Study (BESS) is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of endo-tracheal surfactant therapy for critically ill infants with bronchiolitis. To explore acceptability of BESS, including approach to consent within a limited time frame, we explored parent and staff experiences of trial involvement in the first two bronchiolitis seasons to inform subsequent trial conduct.

Design

A mixed-method embedded study involving a site staff survey, questionnaires and interviews with parents approached about BESS.

Setting

Fourteen UK paediatric intensive care units.

Participants

Of the 179 parents of children approached to take part in BESS, 75 parents (of 69 children) took part in the embedded study. Of these, 55/69 (78%) completed a questionnaire, and 15/69 (21%) were interviewed. Thirty-eight staff completed a questionnaire.

Results

Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. All constructs of the Adapted Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were met. Parents viewed surfactant as being low risk and hoped their child’s participation would help others in the future. Although parents supported research without prior consent in studies of time critical interventions, they believed there was sufficient time to consider this trial. Parents recommended that prospective informed consent should continue to be sought for BESS. Many felt that the time between the consent process and intervention being administered took too long and should be ‘streamlined’ to avoid delays in administration of trial interventions. Staff described how the training and trial processes worked well, yet patients were missed due to lack of staff to deliver the intervention, particularly at weekends.

Conclusion

Parents and staff supported BESS trial and highlighted aspects of the protocol, which should be refined, including a streamlined informed consent process. Findings will be useful to inform proportionate approaches to consent in future paediatric trials where there is a short timeframe for consent discussions.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN11746266.

❌