A qualitative assessment of care priorities of haemodialysis patients
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A qualitative assessment of the care priorities of haemodialysis patients
IRAS ID
152766
Contact name
Keith McCullough
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Hull
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 11 months, 31 days
Research summary
The majority of patients who have kidney failure and do not have a kidney transplant are treated with haemodialysis. This is a treatment that requires connection to a dialysis machine for four hours, three times a week, normally in a hospital. Some patients learn to do aspects of this treatment themselves (shared care) while others have all their care provided by nurses. The whole dialysis treatment process is divided into 14 separate tasks. Patients can choose to do none of their dialysis themselves or can learn to do any number from 1 to 14 tasks. Those who are proficient in all 14 tasks are able to dialyse themselves independently.
It is important to measure care from a patients perspective to be able to make improvements that are meaningful to patients but there is currently no accepted tool for doing this. We would therefore like to find out through an initial survey followed by focus groups with patients requiring haemodialysis what matters to them about their dialysis care.
As patients are involved in varying amounts of shared care (ie different numbers of tasks) and some choose not be be involved in shared care (ie choose care entirely provided by nursing staff) we would like to find out if these different groups have different views on how what important to them about their care. As health care professionals normally make decisions about how to improve care quality we would also like to ask their views to see if these differ from patients.
We will then analyse all the data to look for themes, and for similarities and differences in these themes between groups. This data can then be used to create or adjust an existing tool to measure the quality of care from the patients perspective.
REC name
East Midlands - Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/EM/0034
Date of REC Opinion
12 Jan 2015
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion