FP735EUROPEAN SURVEY ON RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY OPTION EDUCATION

Abstract

Introduction and Aims: Renal replacement therapy option education (RRTOE) empowers patients with CKD to make an informed choice of treatment modality best suited to their lifestyle requirements and needs. In order to support the delivery of high-quality RRTOE, the first detailed quality standards (QS) on its key practical aspects (team structure, process, curriculum, materials, and quality assessment) have recently been published [Isnard Bagnis et al. NDT, 2014]. The field study presented here aimed to assess how current European clinical practice compares to these QS, and suggest areas for improvement in RRTOE. Method(s): Avalidated online questionnaire (25 multiple-choice questions) was used to assess the quality of RRTOE programmes. 263 renal centres in 9 countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland) were invited to complete the questionnaire in their local language. All centres had a CKD clinic as part of their renal service and encompassed a broad range in size, modality use and ownership ( public and private). 25% of the contacted centres (N=66) were university hospitals. Centres owned by a large dialysis provider organization were excluded. Result(s): Of all centres contacted, 19% (N=49) completed the survey and, of these, 98% (N=48) provided RRTOE. Responding centres had well-resourced RRTOE teams [92% had a nephrologist and nurse; 69% had additional members, e.g. psychologist (31%), dietician (48%)] and provided comprehensive programmes. However, 3 potential areas for improvement were identified. 1. Lack of education in all modalities: only 23% of centres educated on all RRT modalities. 2. Lack of patient education on dealing with emotional stress: 56% of centres did not explicitly address this topic. 3. Lack of standardization on quality assessment, which reflects the lack of a widespread consensus on the aims of RRTOE. Conclusion(s): This was the first survey of RRTOE practice compared to QS on a relatively large scale across Europe. The low response rate could reflect a generally low level of interest in RRTOE. Participating centres were likely to represent the high-end of the range in RRTOE quality. Further improvements could be achieved (in these centres and across Europe) through the implementation of the QS, with consequent clinical and economic benefits.