Development and Validation of HD Needling PREM
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Development of an arteriovenous fistula and graft cannulation patient reported experience measure for adults with chronic kidney disease on haemodialysis
IRAS ID
263929
Contact name
Janine Hawkins
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Hertfordshire
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 7 months, 31 days
Research summary
Haemodialysis is a life sustaining treatment for end stage kidney disease which requires vascular access. There is limited previous research on patients experience of needling, however, what is published indicates it can cause anxiety, pain and is variable across renal centres. National kidney patient surveys have consistently identified needling as one of the least positively experienced aspects of renal care and one of the most variable across renal centres in the UK. Whilst some patients accept poor needling experience as a part of haemodialysis treatment, others describe variability in clinical practice and staff competence. The literature discusses the impact of poor patient needling experience, suggesting this could lead patients to avoid vascular access such as fistula and graft use, to rely on methods of vascular access associated with significantly higher risk of poor clinical outcomes, such as central lines.
This study aims to develop a questionnaire that measures patients experiences of needling, covering important aspects of that experience to inform renal service improvements of needling practice. The measure will facilitate improved patient care through both quality improvement work and direct clinical practice.
Our research plan is to 1) understand via in-depth interviews the needling process from a patient perspective, and to identify the key factors that most impact on the experience; 2) confirm with patients that our interpretation of interviews is representative of their experiences, including the importance and incidence of each factor identified; 3) turn these findings into our questionnaire measure with the help of medical and research experts; 4) have patients check the questionnaire makes sense and evaluate it in a pilot study of 150 patients; 5) have approximately 500 patients complete the final version so we can validate the questionnaire to ensure it is scientifically strong.
REC name
South West - Cornwall & Plymouth Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
20/SW/0157
Date of REC Opinion
30 Oct 2020
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion