DESIGN: Randomized-controlled study.
SETTING: Two internal medicine wards of a public, university-affiliated, tertiary-care hospital in Malaysia.
METHODS: We randomly allocated 2 wards to hand hygiene promotion delivered either by PICAs (study arm 1) or by MSCAs (study arm 2). The primary outcome was hand hygiene compliance using direct observation by validated auditors. Secondary outcomes were hand hygiene knowledge and observations from ward tours.
RESULTS: Mean hand hygiene compliance in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved from 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44%-53%) and 50% (95% CI, 44%-55%) in the preintervention period to 66% (63%-69%) and 65% (60%-69%) in the intervention period, respectively. We detected no statistically significant difference in hand hygiene improvement between the 2 study arms. Knowledge scores on hand hygiene in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved from 60% and 63% to 98% and 93%, respectively. Staff in study arm 1 improved hand hygiene because they did not want to disappoint the efforts taken by the PICAs. Staff in study arm 2 felt pressured by the MSCAs to comply with hand hygiene to obtain good overall performance appraisals.
CONCLUSION: Although the attitude of PICAs and MSCAs in terms of leadership, mode of action and perception of their task by staff were very different, or even opposed, both PICAs and MSCAs effectively changed behavior of staff toward improved hand hygiene to comparable levels.
METHODS: A total of 141 patients (77 HD and 64 CAPD) from 1 federal and four state hospitals participated in this cross-sectional study. Patients were randomly selected from the National Renal Registry (NRR) using a stratified random sampling. The EQ-5D-3 L questionnaire was used to measure HRQOL. Variables investigated include dialysis modalities, sociodemographic characteristics, co-morbidities and biochemical markers. Utilities are measured on an ordinal scale of 0-1, where 1 indicates full health and 0 indicates death.
RESULTS: The mean utility scores were 0.854 ± 0.181 and 0.905 ± 0.124 (p > 0.05) and the mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were 76.2 ± 12.90 and 77.1 ± 10.26 (p > 0.05) for HD and CAPD patients respectively. There was a significant difference in problems reported between HD (35.1%) and CAPD (15.6%) on usual activities dimension (p = 0.009). The proportion of patients having problems in the pain/discomfort domain in both modalities was high (34.0%). Haemoglobin (
METHODS: A population-based study was conducted on a total of 890 respondents who were representative of the adult population in Malaysia, i.e., aged ≥18 years old. Respondents were randomly selected using a stratified cluster method. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was estimated from calibrated serum creatinine using the CKD-EPI equation. CKD was defined as eGFR
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is an open-label randomised controlled trial. A total of 434 patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing CAPD will be enrolled and randomised to either the intervention group, Stay Safe Link, or the control group, Stay Safe. All study subjects will be followed up and monitored for 1 year. The primary safety outcome is the rate of peritonitis while the primary efficacy outcomes are the delivered dialysis dose and ultrafiltration volume.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee, National Institute of Health Malaysia. A written informed consent will be obtained from all participating subjects prior to any trial-related procedure and the study conduct will adhere strictly to Good Clinical Practice. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03177031; Pre-results.
METHODS: This was an observational cohort on incident end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Patients contributed person-time from the date of ESKD diagnosis until death, transplant or end of study on December 31, 2014, whichever occurred first. An extended Cox regression model with time-varying exposure to dialysis was used to account for immortal time bias.
RESULTS: Of 3990 incident ESKD patients included, 70.2% patients initiated dialysis; 78.8% with haemodialysis (HD) while the remaining 21.2% with peritoneal dialysis (PD). Dialysis reduced hazard of death in both elderly and non-elderly patients even after controlling for comorbidities (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50, 0.68 and HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69, 0.85, respectively). HD was protective in both the elderly and non-elderly (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.45, 0.63 and HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64, 0.80, respectively). PD significantly reduced risk of death compared to no dialysis in the elderly but not in the non-elderly.
CONCLUSION: Dialysis improved survival in all incident ESKD patients. The findings suggested a larger protection offered by HD. Although improvement in survival from initiating dialysis was large, its true benefit should take overall quality of life into account. SUMMARY AT A GLANCE This observational study showed that initiation of dialysis improves the survival of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients of all age groups, but the quality of life is an important aspect that has not been explored.