International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis practice recommendations: Prescribing high-quality goal-directed peritoneal dialysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Lay summary The International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis last published a guideline on prescribing peritoneal dialysis (PD) in 2006. This focused on clearance of toxins and used a measure of waste product removal by dialysis using urea as an example. This guideline suggested that a specific quantity of small solute removal was needed to achieve dialysis `adequacy'. It is now generally accepted, however, that the well-being of the person on dialysis is related to many different factors and not just removal of specific toxins. This guideline has been written with the focus on the person doing PD. It is proposed that dialysis delivery should be `goal-directed'. This involves discussions between the person doing PD and the care team (shared decision-making) to establish care goals for dialysis delivery. The aims of these care goals are (1) to allow the person doing PD to achieve his/her own life goals and (2) to promote the provision of high-quality dialysis care by the dialysis team.Key recommendations 1. PD should be prescribed using shared decision-making between the person doing PD and the care team. The aim is to establish realistic care goals that (1) maintain quality of life for the person doing PD as much as possible by enabling them to meet their life goals, (2) minimize symptoms and treatment burden while (3) ensuring high-quality care is provided. 2. The PD prescription should take into account the local country resources, the wishes and lifestyle considerations of people needing treatment, including those of their families/caregivers', especially if providing assistance in their care. 3. A number of assessments should be used to help ensure the delivery of high-quality PD care. a. Patient reported outcome measures - this is a measure of how a person doing PD is experiencing life and his/her feeling of well-being. It should take into account the person's symptoms, impact of the dialysis regimen on the person's life, mental health and social circumstances. b. Fluid status is an important part of dialysis delivery. Urine output and fluid removed by dialysis both contribute to maintaining good fluid status. Regular assessment of fluid status, including blood pressure and clinical examination, should be part of routine care. c. Nutrition status should be assessed regularly through evaluation of the patient's appetite, clinical examination, body weight measurements and blood tests (potassium, bicarbonate, phosphate, albumin). Dietary intake of potassium, phosphate, sodium, protein, carbohydrate and fat may need to be assessed and adjusted as well. d. Removal of toxins. This can be estimated using a calculation called Kt/Vurea and/or creatinine clearance. Both are measures of the amount of dialysis delivered. There is no high-quality evidence regarding the need or benefit associated with the achievement of a specific target value for these measures. 4. The amount of kidney function that continues to remove waste products and the remaining urine volume should be known for all individuals doing PD. Management should focus on preserving this as long as possible. 5. For some people who require dialysis and who are old, frail or have a poor prognosis, there may be a quality of life benefit from a reduced dialysis prescription to minimize the burden of treatment. 6. In low and lower middle-income countries, every effort should be made to conform to the framework of these statements, taking into account resource limitations. 7. The principles of prescribing and assessing delivery of high-quality PD to children are the same as for adults. In all cases, the PD prescription should be designed to meet the medical, mental health social and financial needs of the individual child and family
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».