MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094676673 · doi:10.1177/2054358120970098

Facilitators and Barriers to Care in Rural Emergency Departments in Alberta for Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis (PD): An Interpretive Descriptive Study

2020· article· en· W3094676673 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lisa Lillebuen, Kara Schick‐Makaroff, Stephanie Thompson, Anita Molzahn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersKidney Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicinePeritoneal dialysisNursingQualitative researchEmergency departmentAcute careDescriptive statisticsFamily medicineMedical emergencyHealth careSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Home dialysis offers many advantages to patients, but they require support to manage a home-based therapy such as peritoneal dialysis (PD). A rural emergency department provides an important safety net for patients requiring medical care, including managing complications of PD, such as peritonitis. Patients living in northern Alberta are spread out geographically and can be far from a PD training center, yet anecdotally, many rural sites do not provide care for these patients. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to identify the facilitators and barriers to nursing care in rural emergency departments in northern Alberta for patients receiving PD. DESIGN: A qualitative interpretive descriptive approach was used. SETTING: Rural emergency departments across northern Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Purposeful sampling was used to seek participants from 1 of 4 rural acute care hospital emergency departments in northern Alberta. Six registered nurses and 1 licensed practical nurse agreed to participate in the study. They ranged in experience from 2 to 18 years. Two of the participants were unit managers, 2 were clinical nurse educators (CNEs), and the other 3 were staff nurses with 1 of them in a leadership position. METHODS: Individual semistructured interview were conducted over the telephone. The interview guide was developed based on a review of the literature. Interviews continued until no new information was obtained, that is, data were saturated. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were recorded. A constant comparative approach was used for analysis. The coding process was both deductive (drawing from the literature) and inductive. RESULTS: Continuing education about PD was a facilitator, and the lack of education was a barrier to provision of PD care. Similarly, availability of resource materials about PD and access to a CNE were facilitators, while lack of these resources was a barrier to offering PD care. As PD was not always seen regularly, infrequent exposure was a barrier to offering PD care. Lack of physician supports, both from the locum physicians who were sometimes reluctant to care for these patients and the delays in reaching nephrologists were barriers. LIMITATIONS: The findings represent the perceptions of the emergency department nurses who participated. These perceptions may differ from those of nurses who work in other regions of the country. Furthermore, most participants were in a leadership role, and it may be that their perspectives differ from those of front-line nurses. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from our study highlight the need for availability of education and resource materials/persons to care for these patients. There is also a need for greater physician support from both local physicians as well as nephrologists to offer high-quality PD care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. This study is not a clinical trial. It did not involve prospective assignment of participants to a treatment group.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207