Vascular Access Decisions Research Articles

Information needs in vascular access decision-making: A qualitative study of patient and clinical stakeholder perspectives.

The information and decision support needs required to embed a patient-centred strategy are challenging, as several haemodialysis vascular access strategies are possible with significant differences in short- and long-term outcomes of potential treatment options. We aimed to explore and describe stakeholder perspectives on information needs when making decisions about vascular access (VA) for haemodialysis. We performed thematic analysis of seven (six online, one in person) focus group discussions including transcripts, post-it phrases and text responses with 14 patients and 12 vascular access professionals (four nephrologists, three surgeons and five nurses - Vascular access nurse specialists/Education and dialysis nurses) who participated in at total of six online and one in person focus group. All patients had experience of haemodialysis and 50% had experience with at least one other modality of RRT. Ten patients had experience of more than one VA modality and 4/14 had experience of AVG, 13/14 had experience of AVF and 8/14 had experience of TCVC. We identified four semantic themes and two latent themes. The themes and their subthemes reflected information needs of patients when making vascular access decisions: Knowledge, Risks and Benefits of Relevant options, long-term treatment strategy and Personal Impact of VA. The latent themes, identified across all stakeholders, were of the need for consistent and trustworthy information. All recent vascular access guidelines propose a shared decision-making approach to vascular access. The ability to implement this in practice carries an information need for both patients and clinicians. This study describes a framework model which can be applied during co-design and assessment of vascular access educational resources to facilitate a patient centred perspective.

Exploring Health Literacy and Vascular Access Decision Making: A Scoping Review.

One in seven adults in the United States has chronic kidney disease (CKD) and individuals with the most severe form, end stage kidney disease (ESKD), may require renal replacement therapy with hemodialysis. Despite well-established guidelines indicating that arteriovenous access is the preferred type of vascular access for hemodialysis, in 2021, 85.4% of patients initiated dialysis with a CVC. While the reasons for this evidence-practice gap are unclear, health literacy and patient disease-specific knowledge may play an important role. Importantly, 25% of patients with CKD have limited health literacy. While there is an abundance of research regarding the presence of poor health literacy, poor kidney disease-specific knowledge, and their association with health outcomes in patients with CKD, there is currently a paucity of data about the relationship between health literacy, vascular access-specific knowledge, and vascular access outcomes. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the relationship between health literacy, disease-specific knowledge, and vascular access in patients with CKD. A better understanding of health literacy in this population will help inform the development of strategies to assess patient vascular access-specific knowledge and aid in vascular access decision making.

Alignment Among Patient, Caregiver, and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Hemodialysis Vascular Access Decision-Making: A Qualitative Study.

Updates to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access emphasize the "right access, in the right patient, at the right time, for the right reasons." Although this implies a collaborative approach, little is known about how patients, their caregivers, and health care providers engage in vascular access (VA) decision-making. To explore how the perspectives of patients receiving hemodialysis, their caregivers, and hemodialysis care team align and diverge in relation to VA selection. Qualitative descriptive study. Five outpatient hemodialysis centers in Calgary, Alberta. Our purposive sample included 19 patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, 2 caregivers, and 21 health care providers (7 hemodialysis nurses, 6 VA nurses, and 8 nephrologists). We conducted semi-structured interviews with consenting participants. Using an inductive thematic analysis approach, we coded transcripts in duplicate and characterized themes addressing our research objective. While participants across roles shared some perspectives related to VA decision-making, we identified areas where views diverged. Areas of alignment included (1) optimizing patient preparedness-acknowledging decisional readiness and timing, and (2) value placed on trusting relationships with the kidney care team-respecting decisional autonomy with guidance. Perspectives diverged in the following aspects: (1) differing VA priorities and preferences-patients' emphasis on minimizing disruptions to normalcy contrasted with providers' preferences for fistulas and optimizing biomedical parameters of dialysis; (2) influence of personal and peer experience-patients preferred pragmatic, experiential knowledge, whereas providers emphasized informational credibility; and (3) endpoints for VA review-reassessment of VA decisions was prompted by access dissatisfaction for patients and a medical imperative to achieve a functioning access for health care providers. Participation was limited to individuals comfortable communicating in English and from urban, in-center hemodialysis units. Few informal caregivers of people receiving hemodialysis and younger patients participated in this study. Although patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers share perspectives on important aspects of VA decisions, conflicting priorities and preferences may impact the decisional outcome. Findings highlight opportunities to bridge knowledge and readiness gaps and integrate shared decision-making in the VA selection process.

Hemodialysis Arteriovenous Access Cosmesis Scale (AVACS): A new measure for vascular access.

This study aimed to develop a cosmesis scale to evaluate the cosmetic appearance of hemodialysis (HD) arteriovenous (AV) accesses from the perspective of the patient and clinician, which could be incorporated into clinical trials. Using a modified Delphi process, two AV access cosmesis scale (AVACS) components were developed in a four-round Delphi panel consisting of two surveys and two consensus meetings with two rounds of patient consultation. The Delphi panel consisted of 15 voting members including five interventional or general nephrologists, five vascular surgeons, three interventional radiologists, and two vascular access nurse coordinators. Four patients experienced with vascular access were involved in patient question development. For a component to be included in the AVACS, it had to meet the prespecified panel consensus agreement of ⩾70%. The clinician component of the AVACS includes nine questions on the following AV access features: scarring, skin discoloration, aneurysm/pseudoaneurysms and megafistula appearance. The patient component includes six questions about future vascular access decisions, interference with work or leisure activities, clothing choices, self-consciousness or attractiveness, emotional impact, and overall appearance. Delphi panel methods are subjective by design, but with expert clinical opinion are used to develop classification systems and outcome measures. The developed scale requires further validation testing but is available for clinical trial use. While safety and efficacy are the primary concerns when evaluating AV access for HD, cosmesis is an important component of the ESKD patient experience. The AVACS has been designed to assess this important domain; it can be used to facilitate patient care and education about vascular access choice and maintenance. AVACS can also be used to inform future research on developing new techniques for AV access creation and maintenance, particularly as relates to AV access cosmesis.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision Making in Vascular Access Selection: A Qualitative Study

Collaborative approaches to vascular access selection are being increasingly encouraged to elicit patients' preferences and priorities where no unequivocally superior choice exists. We explored how patients, their caregivers, and clinicians integrate principles of shared decision making when engaging in vascular access discussions. Qualitative description. Semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of patients, their caregivers, and clinicians from outpatient hemodialysis programs in Alberta, Canada. We used a thematic analysis approach to inductively code transcripts and generate themes to capture key concepts related to vascular access shared decision making across participant roles. 42 individuals (19 patients, 2 caregivers, 21 clinicians) participated in this study. Participants identified how access-related decisions follow a series of major decisions about kidney replacement therapy and care goals that influence vascular access preferences and choice. Vascular access shared decision making was strengthened through integration of vascular access selection with dialysis-related decisions and timely, tailored, and balanced exchange of information between patients and their care team. Participants described how opportunities to revisit the vascular access decision before and after dialysis initiation helped prepare patients for their access and encouraged ongoing alignment between patients' care priorities and treatment plans. Where shared decision making was undermined, hemodialysis via a catheter ensued as the most readily available vascular access option. Our study was limited to patients and clinicians from hemodialysis care settings and included few caregiver participants. Findings suggest that earlier, or upstream, decisions about kidney replacement therapies influence how and when vascular access decisions are made. Repeated vascular access discussions that are integrated with other higher-level decisions are needed to promote vascular access shared decision making and preparedness.

Vesicant infusates are not associated with ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter failure: A secondary analysis of existing data.

Intravenous vesicants are commonly infused via peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) despite guidelines recommending administration via central route. The impact of these medications on PIVC failure is unclear. We aimed to assess dose-related impact of these caustic medications on ultrasound-guided (US) PIVC survivorship. We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial that compared survival of two catheters: a standard long (SL) and an ultra-long (UL) US PIVC. This study involved reviewing and recording all vesicants infusions through the PIVCs. Type and number of vesicants doses were extracted and characterized as one, two or multiple. The most commonly used vesicants were individually categorized for further analysis. The primary outcome was PIVC failure accounting for use and timing of vesicant infusates. Between October 2018 and March 2019, 257 subjects were randomized with 131 in the UL group and 126 in the SL group. Vesicants were infused in 96 (37.4%) out of 257 study participants. In multivariable time-dependent extended Cox regression analysis, there was no significant increased risk of failure due to vesicant use [adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 1.71 (95% CI 0.76-1.81) p = 0.477]. The number of vesicant doses was not significantly associated with the increased risk of PIVC failure [(1 vs 0) aHR 1.20 (95% CI 0.71-2.02) p = 0.500], [(2 vs 0) aHR 1.51 (95% CI 0.67-3.43) p = 0.320] and [(≥ 3 vs 0) aHR 0.98 (95% CI 0.50-1.92) p = 0.952]. Vesicant usage did not significantly increase the risk of PIVC failure even when multiple doses were needed in this investigation. Ultrasound-guided PIVCs represent a pragmatic option when vesicant therapy is anticipated. Nevertheless, it is notable that overall PIVC failure rates remain high and other safety events related to vesicant use should be considered when clinicians make vascular access decisions for patients.

To PICC or not to PICC? A cross-sectional survey of vascular access practices in the ICU.

Vascular access patterns in the intensive care unit (ICU) have shifted from non-tunneled central venous catheters (CVCs) towards peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). We evaluated perceptions of critical care practitioners regarding these devices and variation in evidence-based practice. A 35-question survey on ICU vascular access was deployed in 13 Michigan hospitals. Descriptive statistics summarized responses. Differences in utilization, perceptions and evidence-based practices between PICCs and CVCs, by participant and site-level characteristics, were assessed. 314 of 621 eligible providers responded to the survey (response rate 51%). 15% of providers reported not routinely using ultrasound when placing CVCs. Respondents whom were trainees, from larger hospitals, and from closed ICUs were more likely to use ultrasound (p<0.001). Additionally, 21% of respondents stated they did not specify number of CVC lumens, while 46% did not specify number of PICC lumens (p<0.001). The likelihood of specifying PICC lumens increased when vascular access protocols were in place (p=0.001). 2/3 of respondents (n=173, 66%) stated more research on ICU vascular access was needed. Variation in guideline-based vascular access practices exists in the ICU. Defined local protocols may improve guideline adherence. Studies evaluating vascular access decisions and patient safety in the ICU appear necessary.

The patient experience of hemodialysis vascular access decision-making.

To describe vascular access (VA)-related decision-making from the patient perspective, in patients who have already chosen hemodialysis as their renal replacement modality, and identify areas where physicians can improve this experience. In-person, semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with end-stage kidney disease were systematically analyzed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis. Interviews were conducted until systematic analysis revealed no new themes. Patients had mean age 57 (range 22-85), with seven males and diverse racial/ethnic/marital status. All (15/15) patients viewed VA as "intertwined and interrelated" with dialysis, prioritized the dialysis, described the VA merely as the "hookup" to life-preserving dialysis and gave it minimal consideration. Three themes were identified: consolidation of dialysis and VA, reliance on supportive advisors and communication with physicians. Although 14/15 patients described processes common to medical decision-making, including information seeking, learning from the experiences of others, and weighing risks and benefits, they did not apply these processes specifically to VA. While all participants took ownership of the VA decision, they lacked clear understanding about the different types of VA and their consequences. Most patients (14/15) depended on family and friends for reinforcement, motivation and advice. Patients all described physician characteristics they associated with trustworthiness, the most common being listening and explaining, demonstrating empathy and making an effort to meet the patient's individual needs. Perceived arrogance, unavailability and lack of expertise represented untrustworthiness. The majority (14/15) accepted VA recommendations from physicians they found trustworthy and authoritative. The study participants were minimally engaged in VA decision-making. Educational aids and shared decision-making tools are needed to empower patients to make better-informed, self-efficacious VA decisions.

Vascular Access for Children Needing Procedures.

* Abbreviation: miniMAGIC — : Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in pediatrics Interventional radiologists, nurse practitioners, anesthesiologists, and surgeons are often involved in securing vascular access for children. Traditionally our roles have been focused on central venous access, but increasingly we are called on for patients with difficult intravenous access or to provide longer-term peripheral access. At times, decisions to involve us occur as a “plan B,” after repeated failure to secure other access or after early failure of multiple peripheral intravenous lines. Vascular access decisions are often left to junior staff, occur after hours, and can be seen by treating teams as inconsequential and unimportant. Traditional silos of practice have not helped in this approach. Pediatric vascular access is often an orphan child, with no coordinating family of practitioners. Vascular access is emerging as a subspecialty domain, involving nursing, surgical, anesthetic, and interventional radiologic skills. Who those practitioners are is less important than ensuring they have the … Address correspondence to Craig A. McBride, FRACS, Surgical Team: Infants, Toddlers, Children, Queensland Children’s Hospital, 501 Stanley St, South Brisbane, QLD 4101, Australia. E-mail: craig.mcbride@health.qld.gov.au

Vascular Access by Specialists.

* Abbreviations: miniMAGIC — : Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in pediatrics VA — : vascular access VAD — : vascular access device Achieving reliable vascular access (VA) for children devoid of pain, anxiety, and complication is the goal of pediatric VA specialists. VA prevails across various settings, both inpatient and outpatient. In addition, VA spans acute and chronic medical requirements, ranging from the seemingly simple, one-time infusion to the complex, prolonged treatments requiring multiple, frequent infusions and sometimes a lifelong dependency. Regardless of the motive, selection of a vascular access device (VAD) should be driven by the individual’s treatment (medication properties and treatment duration and frequency) and pathophysiology (age, acute and/or chronic disease, existing vessel health, diagnosis, and individual risk factors) with the primary aim of avoiding patient harm. At the heart of achieving this is choosing the right VAD from the beginning. Most health care facilities attempt to achieve this by publishing local VA decision trees. Unfortunately, these are often generic, lack an evidence base, and do not provide direction for nonstandard VA needs. Globally, the realization of VA as a specialty is variable. Even within the same country, the scope and recognition of VA specialists … Address correspondence to Tricia M. Kleidon, RN, MNursPrac, Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Queensland Children’s Hospital, Children’s Health Queensland, 501 Stanley Street, South Brisbane, QLD 4101, Australia. E-mail: tricia.kleidon{at}health.qld.gov.au

Optimizing vascular-access device decision-making in the era of midline catheters.

This narrative review addresses vascular access device choice from peripheral intravenous catheters through central venous catheters, including the evolving use of midline catheters. The review incorporates best practices, published algorithms, and complications extending beyond CLABSI and phlebitis to assist clinicians in navigating complex vascular access decisions.

Adoption and application in Italy of the principal guidelines and international recommendations on venous access.

Vascular access is the commonest invasive procedure in secondary care. Vascular access is understood as being access to the bloodstream of acute and chronic patients for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes such as blood sampling, vessel pressure monitoring, fluid infusions (blood transfusions, parenteral nutrition), pharmacological treatments (e.g. antibiotic therapies, chemotherapy, analgesic therapies) or apheresis/dialysis through catheters that may remain in the vessels for weeks or months. There is a wide variety of options available for venous access. Device selection for venous access must be adapted to the patient's needs, and to the type, duration and frequency of the infusion. The scenario is rapidly evolving and hence treatments such as cancer chemotherapy, total parenteral nutrition, long-term parenteral antimicrobial therapies are increasing not only in hospitalized patients, but also in contexts other than traditional ones, such as local care, in response to needs related to healthcare expenditure or patients' needs. This paper originates from the idea of a multidisciplinary group of experts to analyze the main, most recent international guidelines and recommendations on vascular access and to evaluate its implementation in Italy. It often happens that documents acquired in different contexts, however extraordinarily effective and exhaustive, are difficult to apply in contexts where the healthcare organization, professional resources, communication dynamics and regulations are different. The consequence is a progressive departure from international standards and evidence-based medicine, which is particularly burdensome in sectors (such as vascular access and devices used for access) where technological innovation requires constant updating, alignment and method sharing. The work motivation of this group of authors, which sees its final finding in the welfare standards and criteria of appropriateness contained in this document, lies in the particular ongoing and future Italian epidemiological scenario and in the assessments of health economics that demand conscious and appropriate decisions in the interest of the citizen and the healthcare system. The vascular access field is undergoing a veritable revolution; once upon a time the leading lights were those who possessed the best technical skills, the best manual skills, whereas nowadays vascular access decisions are strategic decisions involving specially trained health professionals, able to assess complex interactions and work in teams. There is a strong cultural need, not only with regard to technical aspects, but also for the execution of procedures in daily clinical practice that comply with the recommendations set out in the guidelines published and elaborated by public and private bodies and institutions, as well as by scientific societies and recognized technical and scientific associations. This document is not a manual on vascular access for consultation by all those who intend to go deeper into operating aspects (selection of the device, implantation and management), but a reflection on the most recent pointers in the field of vascular access within Italy's complex healthcare situation.

Successful AV fistula creation does not lead to higher catheter use: the experience by the Northwest Renal Network 16 Vascular Access Quality Improvement Program. Four years follow-up.

In 2002, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) required all 18 Renal Networks to participate in a Vascular Access Quality Improvement Program (QIP). The Northwest Renal Network (NWRN 16) chose to increase arteriovenous fistula (AVF) use. NWRN 16 hypothesized that strategies which targeted the improvement of AVF rate and the reduction of catheter use were the same. In December 2001, 44.2% of hemodialysis (HD) patients in the NWRN 16 received HD using an AVF which met the Dialysis Outcome Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) 40% AVF guideline for prevalent patients. However, 43% of HD facilities (2869 patients) had less than 40% of AVF and higher HD catheter rates than the average Network catheter rates (25.0 vs. 20.3%). To address the needs of underperforming facilities, NWRN 16 provided education and tools for their vascular access decision makers to promote AVF creation and catheter reduction. In 2002, NWRN 16 sponsored four regional workshops targeted at nephrologists, vascular surgeons, HD nurses, and interventional radiologists. Percentage of AVFs in use in invited facilities increased from 31.3% pre-intervention to 56.2% at 4 yrs: 78% increase (99% confidence interval: 77.8% to 81.5%). Percentage of catheters increased from 25% to 25.8%: 3.2% change over 4 yrs (99% confidence interval: 2.5% to 4%). The success of Network 16's AVF interventions demonstrates the effectiveness of Network education promoting multidisciplinary teamwork, and innovative strategies to increase dramatically AVF use without substantial increase in catheter use.

Development of a clinical prediction rule to improve peripheral intravenous cannulae first attempt success in the emergency department and reduce post insertion failure rates: the Vascular Access Decisions in the Emergency Room (VADER) study protocol

IntroductionPeripheral intravenous cannula (PIVC) insertion is one of the most common clinical interventions performed in emergency care worldwide. However, factors associated with successful PIVC placement and maintenance are not well...

Setting Priorities for Optimizing Vascular Access Decision Making--An International Survey of Patients and Clinicians.

BackgroundMany decisions around vascular access for haemodialysis warrant a collaborative treatment decision-making process, involving both clinician and patient. Yet, patients’ experiences in this regard have been suboptimal. Although clinical practice guidelines could facilitate collaborative decision making, they often focus on the clinicians’ side of the process, while failing to address the patients’ perspective. The objective of this study was to explore and compare kidney patients’ and clinicians’ views on what vascular access-related decisions deserved priority for developing guidelines that will contribute to optimizing collaborative decision making.MethodsIn the context of updating their vascular access guideline, European Renal Best Practice surveyed an international panel of 85 kidney patients, 687 nephrologists, 194 nurses, and 140 surgeons/radiologists. In an electronic questionnaire, respondents rated 42 vascular access-related topics on a 5-point Likert scale. Based on mean standardized ratings, we compared priority ratings between patients and each clinician group.ResultsSelection of access type and site, as well as prevention of access infections received top priority across all respondent groups. Patients generally assigned higher priority to decisions regarding managing adverse effects of arteriovenous access and patient involvement in care, while clinicians more often prioritized decisions around sustaining patients’ access options, technical aspects of access creation, and optimizing fistula maturation and patency.ConclusionApart from identifying the most pressing knowledge gaps, our study provides pointers for developing guidelines that may improve healthcare professionals’ understanding of when to involve patients along the vascular access pathway.

Peripheral intravenous and central catheter algorithm: a proactive quality initiative.

Peripheral intravenous (PIV) infiltrations causing tissue damage is a global issue surrounded by situations that make vascular access decisions difficult. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to develop an algorithm and assess its effectiveness in reducing PIV infiltrations in neonates. The targeted subjects were all infants in our neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) with a PIV catheter. We completed a retrospective chart review of the electronic medical record to collect 4th quarter 2012 baseline data. Following adoption of the algorithm, we also performed a daily manual count of all PIV catheters in the 1st and 2nd quarters 2013. Daily PIV days were defined as follows: 1 patient with a PIV catheter equals 1 PIV day. An infant with 2 PIV catheters in place was counted as 2 PIV days. Our rate of infiltration or tissue damage was determined by counting the number of events and dividing by the number of PIV days. The rate of infiltration or tissue damage was reported as the number of events per 100 PIV days. The number of infiltrations and PIV catheters was collected from the electronic medical record and also verified manually by daily assessment after adoption of the algorithm. To reduce the rate of PIV infiltrations leading to grade 4 infiltration and tissue damage by at least 30% in the NICU population. Incidence of PIV infiltrations/100 catheter days. The baseline rate for total infiltrations increased slightly from 5.4 to 5.68/100 PIV days (P = .397) for the NICU. We attributed this increase to heightened awareness and better reporting. Grade 4 infiltrations decreased from 2.8 to 0.83/100 PIV catheter days (P = .00021) after the algorithm was implemented. Tissue damage also decreased from 0.68 to 0.3/100 PIV days (P = .11). Statistical analysis used the Fisher exact test and reported as statistically significant at P < .05. Our findings suggest that utilization of our standardized decision pathway was instrumental in providing guidance for problem solving related to vascular access decisions. We feel this contributed to the overall reduction in grade 4 intravenous infiltration and tissue damage rates. Grade 4 infiltration reductions were highly statistically significant (P = .00021).

Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Editors’ Picks

<i>Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes</i> Editors’ Picks

Pursuing Permanent Hemodialysis Vascular Access in Patients With a Poor Prognosis: Juxtaposing Potential Benefit and Harm

For patients with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis, the native arteriovenous fistula remains the gold standard of vascular access, with tunneled cuffed central venous catheters reserved for temporary use or as a last resort in patients for whom a permanent vascular access is not possible. It is expected that most patients receiving hemodialysis will be suitable for arteriovenous fistula placement, with suitable patients defined as those: (1) for whom long-term dialysis is expected to confer benefit, (2) with vascular anatomy amenable to arteriovenous fistula placement, and (3) with progressive irreversible kidney failure who are more likely to require dialysis than to die before reaching dialysis dependence. The present article reviews considerations for vascular access decision making, focusing on older patients and those with a poor prognosis, weighing the risks and benefits of arteriovenous fistulas, arteriovenous grafts, and central venous catheters and emphasizing that in the process of vascular access decision making for such patients, medical and ethical obligations to avoid central venous catheters must be balanced by the obligation to do no harm.

Patient attitudes towards the arteriovenous fistula: a qualitative study on vascular access decision making

The use of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) among hemodialysis (HD) patients has been consistently associated with lower rates of morbidity and mortality; however, up to 30% of eligible patients refuse the creation or cannulation of an AVF. We aimed to understand the attitudes, beliefs, preferences and values of patients who refused creation or use of an AVF. With qualitative methodology, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 HD patients (Canada, 2009), who previously refused creation or use of an AVF. Three independent analysts reviewed interview transcripts. We discovered three main themes that impacted the decision to refuse a fistula: (i) poor previous personal or vicarious experiences with the fistula, including cannulation, bleeding, time commitment and appearance; (ii) knowledge transfer and informed decision making. Patients identified information from other patients to be as important as information from health care workers, that information on vascular access (VA) was presented but not understood and that timing of information was crucial with information overload at the start of dialysis and (iii) maintenance of status quo and outlook on life. Some patients stated they live day-to-day without being influenced by the mortality risks with a catheter. AVF refusal is multifactorial and depends on individual patients. Although nephrologists consider the fistula to be the optimal VA, patients do not think in the same terms of reducing infection rates but focus on the practical day-to-day use of their VA and its influence on their quality of life and future outlook.

Exploring the impact of a decision support intervention on vascular access decisions in chronic hemodialysis patients: study protocol.

BackgroundIn patients with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease who require renal replacement therapy a major decision concerns modality choice. However, many patients defer the decision about modality choice or they have an urgent or emergent need of RRT, which results in them starting hemodialysis with a Central Venous Catheter. Thereafter, efforts to help patients make more timely decisions about access choices utilizing education and resource allocation strategies met with limited success resulting in a high prevalent CVC use in Canada. Providing decision support tailored to meet patients' decision making needs may improve this situation. The Registered Nurses Association of Ontario has developed a clinical practice guideline to guide decision support for adults living with Chronic Kidney Disease (Decision Support for Adults with Chronic Kidney Disease.) The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of implementing selected recommendations this guideline on priority provincial targets for hemodialysis access in patients with Stage 5 CKD who currently use Central Venous Catheters for vascular access.Methods/DesignA non-experimental intervention study with repeated measures will be conducted at St. Michaels Hospital in Toronto, Canada. Decisional conflict about dialysis access choice will be measured using the validated SURE tool, an instrument used to identify decisional conflict. Thereafter a tailored decision support intervention will be implemented. Decisional conflict will be re-measured and compared with baseline scores. Patients and staff will be interviewed to gain an understanding of how useful this intervention was for them and whether it would be feasible to implement more widely. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Statistical significance of difference between means over time for aggregated SURE scores (pre/post) will be assessed using a paired t-test. Qualitative analysis with content coding and identification of themes will be conducted for the focus group and patient interview data.DiscussionCoupling the SURE tool with a decision support system structured so that a positive test result triggers providers to help patients through the decision-making process and/or refer patients to appropriate resources could benefit patients and ensure they have the opportunity to make informed HD access choices.