Premium
Narratives of patient participation in haemodialysis
Author(s) -
AndersenHollekim Tone,
Solbjør Marit,
Kvangarsnes Marit,
Hole Torstein,
Landstad Bodil J.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of clinical nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.94
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1365-2702
pISSN - 0962-1067
DOI - 10.1111/jocn.15238
Subject(s) - autonomy , narrative , medicine , focus group , qualitative research , kidney disease , nursing , quality of life (healthcare) , health care , coping (psychology) , psychology , clinical psychology , sociology , social science , philosophy , linguistics , political science , anthropology , law , economics , economic growth
Aim and objective To explore how working‐age adults experience patient participation in hospital haemodialysis. Background End‐stage kidney disease is a progressive, chronic condition imposing patients with high treatment burdens and low health‐related quality of life. Patients face multiple medical decisions related to living with kidney failure. Given their frequent interaction with health services, patient participation may be of special value. Design Qualitative design with a narrative approach. Methods In 2018, eleven patients aged 35–64 years undergoing hospital haemodialysis participated in individual interviews. All interviews were analysed using a narrative approach. Reporting followed the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Findings The patients’ narratives of participation comprised three themes following their healthcare trajectory: Informed, but not involved in treatment choices; Duality of care and control; and Frail trust reflecting collaborative deficiencies . The patients received good information about dialysis, but were not involved in choice of treatment modality. Professional work, as well as the nature of treatment, contributed to restricted patient autonomy. Patients’ trust suffered from collaborative deficiency generating delays in their treatment trajectories, and patients extended their responsibility into the coordination of transitions as a way of coping with these issues. Conclusions The study identified challenges related to patient involvement and interdisciplinary collaboration. Involving patients through dialogue and acknowledging their experiences, preferences and lifestyles may strengthen the mutual patient–professional understanding of treatment. Despite increased focus on seamless trajectories, patients face obstacles regarding interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination of health services. Relevance to clinical practice The findings indicate a want of individually customised care for people requiring dialysis. Patients need to be involved in the choice of treatment modality as well as decisions related to the current treatment. Information must include potential consequences of the different treatment modalities. Health services need to strengthen collaboration in order to secure treatment continuity and patient involvement.