Developing and Evaluating a Home Hemodialysis Training Program—A Quality Improvement Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2018, our home hemodialysis training program required 3-4 months to complete, with sessions lasting 4 h, three times a week. Due to the time commitment, some patients who preferred home hemodialysis decided on alternative dialysis modalities. This study aimed to (1) identify potential improvements to Training Program 1.0, (2) develop Training Program 2.0, and (3) assess the outcomes of Training Program 2.0. METHOD: We reviewed literature, conducted focus groups with home hemodialysis nurses in Helsinki, Finland, and interviewed patients who participated in Training Program 1.0. Training Program 2.0 was developed in collaboration with patients and clinicians, using a "learning by doing" approach. Evaluation included both qualitative interviews and quantitative analysis of patient records. FINDINGS: Patients' feedback, aligned with the literature and Helsinki's program, led to six major changes: (1) more frequent training sessions, (2) earlier introduction of self-cannulation, (3) a permanent team of training nurses, (4) a shorter and more structured program, (5) individualized weekly schedules, and (6) clearer instructions. Training frequency increased to four sessions per week, with self-cannulation introduced in the second week. The quantitative results showed a trend toward a reduction in the number of training sessions and total training time. The qualitative data indicated a marked improvement in patient experience. DISCUSSION: The modifications in Training Program 2.0 created a more effective learning environment, as evidenced by improved patient satisfaction. While quantitative measures did not show significant reductions in training time, the qualitative improvements suggest that these changes positively impact the patient experience, aligning with findings from other home hemodialysis studies. These results underscore the importance of tailoring training programs to patient needs and preferences, contributing to better engagement and potentially higher adoption of home hemodialysis.
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 | 0.053 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".