Adressing Hemodialysis Nurse Cannulation Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: While existing literature primarily addresses patient cannulation anxiety, the anxiety experienced by hemodialysis (HD) nurses is frequently overlooked. HD nurse cannulation anxiety occurs when HD nurses experience nervousness prior to and during cannulation procedures. Enhancing understanding of this phenomenon can facilitate the identification of its causative factors and support the development of effective strategies to address this critical issue. Method: This commentary was informed by a comprehensive literature review and insights gathered from informal dialogue with nurses possessing 1 to 27 years of experience in HD. Results: Cannulation anxiety among HD nurses negatively impacts their mental well-being and performance, potentially resulting in adverse patient outcomes. Causative factors of HD nurse cannulation anxiety include deficiencies in training and education, patient cannulation anxiety, limited availability of arteriovenous accesses in the clinical setting, and socio-demographic factors specific to HD nurses. Strategies to address HD nurse cannulation anxiety include prioritizing ongoing cannulation training throughout HD nurses’ careers, the utilization of virtual reality-based cannulation training programs, enhancing HD nurses’ proficiency with point-of-care ultrasound machines, and the implementation of proactive measures to mitigate the impact of socio-demographic factors on the development of HD nurse cannulation anxiety. Conclusion: Given the severity of its implications, addressing HD nurse cannulation anxiety should be a top priority for dialysis centers globally. Mitigating HD nurse cannulation anxiety can lead to substantial improvements in the overall care of HD patients and greater utilization of arteriovenous accesses, thereby enhancing HD patients’ health outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".