Primary Care Providers Barriers, Comfort and Awareness in Follow-up Care of Acute Kidney Injury Patients: A Comprehensive Survey on Current Practices
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Patients who experienced acute kidney injury (AKI) may benefit from dedicated care following hospital discharge. Most of these patients will be followed by primary care providers. There is a lack of data on current practices and comfort for these care providers when offering post-AKI care. Objective: We surveyed nurse practitioners and family physicians to assess their awareness, perceptions, practice patterns and comfort regarding post-AKI care. Design/Setting: We distributed a web-based self-administered survey among clinicians from the Province of Quebec. We asked about their awareness and perceptions on how AKI should be disclosed and followed, the barriers encountered regarding the process of care following hospital discharge, and their level of comfort and expertise in offering dedicated post-AKI care. The survey integrated direct and scenario-based questions and was conducted from December 2022 to April 2023. Participants: , respectively. No incentives were provided. Methods: We conducted descriptive analyses and used chi-squared analysis to compare responses between family physicians and nurse practitioners and between hospital-based and cabinet-based practice. Results: The survey was opened by 779 potential participants. Of these, the response rate was 9% (70/779). Most participants were family physicians (79%) and dedicated 70% (±32) of their time in community outpatient clinics. Participants reported that 59% (±20) of all patients seen daily had at least 1 risk factor for AKI, whereas they estimated that 21% (±12) of recently discharged patients suffered from an AKI episode. The lack of awareness by the patient and lack of details on the discharge summary were the barriers most frequently reported impacting the overall process of care at follow-up. Most nurse practitioners (60%) and 33% of family physicians reported at least some levels of discomfort and lack of expertise when offering post-AKI. Limitations: The generalizability of our study is limited by its response rate. However, this is comparable with typical response rates seen in electronic surveys. The distribution was limited to a single province of Canada. Conclusions: We reported significant barriers regarding the hospital-to-community transition of care in patients who experienced AKI and the suboptimal comfort and expertise of primary care providers when offering dedicated post-AKI care. This reflects the need to improve communication, collaboration, and AKI training with primary care providers.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».