Ultrafiltration rate is a poor indicator of haemodialysis nursing quality. Commentary on Lindberg and Ludvigsen (2012)
File version
Author(s)
Bonner, Ann
Moynahan, Lynda
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
Size
File type(s)
Location
License
Abstract
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
Journal Title
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume
50
Issue
1
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement
Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject
Nursing
Midwifery
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Haemodialysis
Nursing care
Persistent link to this record
Citation
Bennett, PN; Bonner, A; Moynahan, L, Ultrafiltration rate is a poor indicator of haemodialysis nursing quality. Commentary on Lindberg and Ludvigsen (2012), International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2013, 50 (1), pp. 137-138