Ultrafiltration rate is a poor indicator of haemodialysis nursing quality. Commentary on Lindberg and Ludvigsen (2012)
Author(s)
Bennett, Paul N
Bonner, Ann
Moynahan, Lynda
Year published
2013
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
In their paper Lindberg and Ludvigsen (2012) have correctly identified the lack of evidence-based nursesensitive indicators measuring the quality of haemodialysis nursing care. The authors suggest that the intradialytic ultrafiltration rate (UFR) (total fluid removed divided by the total time in a single dialysis treatment, measured in litres per hour) may be one such indicator. Importantly it is best practice to minimise high UFRs as they are associated with higher risk of cardiovascular events and vascular access complications (Curatola et al., 2011). However, this does not justify UFR to qualify as a nurse-sensitive ...
View more >In their paper Lindberg and Ludvigsen (2012) have correctly identified the lack of evidence-based nursesensitive indicators measuring the quality of haemodialysis nursing care. The authors suggest that the intradialytic ultrafiltration rate (UFR) (total fluid removed divided by the total time in a single dialysis treatment, measured in litres per hour) may be one such indicator. Importantly it is best practice to minimise high UFRs as they are associated with higher risk of cardiovascular events and vascular access complications (Curatola et al., 2011). However, this does not justify UFR to qualify as a nurse-sensitive indicator of quality in the haemodialysis context. The aim of this response is to voice our concerns over the proposal to use haemodialysis treatment UFR as a haemodialysis nurse-sensitive quality indicator
View less >
View more >In their paper Lindberg and Ludvigsen (2012) have correctly identified the lack of evidence-based nursesensitive indicators measuring the quality of haemodialysis nursing care. The authors suggest that the intradialytic ultrafiltration rate (UFR) (total fluid removed divided by the total time in a single dialysis treatment, measured in litres per hour) may be one such indicator. Importantly it is best practice to minimise high UFRs as they are associated with higher risk of cardiovascular events and vascular access complications (Curatola et al., 2011). However, this does not justify UFR to qualify as a nurse-sensitive indicator of quality in the haemodialysis context. The aim of this response is to voice our concerns over the proposal to use haemodialysis treatment UFR as a haemodialysis nurse-sensitive quality indicator
View less >
Journal Title
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Volume
50
Issue
1
Subject
Nursing
Midwifery
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Haemodialysis
Nursing care