Search

Patients with end stage renal failure require dialysis and strict adherence to treatment plans to sustain life. However, non-adherence is a common and serious problem among patients with chronic kidney disease. There is a scarcity of studies in examining the effects of disease management programmes on patients with chronic kidney disease.This paper examines whether the study group receiving the disease management programme have better improvement than the control group, comparing outcomes at baseline (O1), at 7 weeks at the completion of the programme (O2) and at 13 weeks (O3).This is a randomized controlled trial. The outcome measures were non-adherence in diet, fluid, dialysis and medication, quality of life, satisfaction, symptom control, complication control and health service utilisation.There was no significant difference between the control and study group for the baseline measures, except for sleep. Significant differences (p0.05) were found between the control and study group at O2 in the outcome measures of diet degree non-adherence, sleep, symptom, staff encouragement, overall health and satisfaction. Sustained effects at O3 were noted in the outcome measures of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) non-adherence degree, sleep, symptom, and effect of kidney disease.Many studies exploring chronic disease management have neglected the group with end stage renal failure and this study fills this gap. This study has employed an innovative model of skill mix using specialist and general nurses and demonstrated patient improvement in diet non-adherence, CAPD non-adherence, aspects of quality of life and satisfaction with care. Redesigning chronic disease management programmes helps to optimize the use of different levels of skills and resources to bring about positive outcomes.

Background The significance of effective interpersonal communication in healthcare is well established, as is the importance of overcoming language barriers. This has a particular bearing for minority language speakers, where denying language choice can compromise the quality of healthcare provision. Nevertheless, there is limited empirical research exploring language awareness in healthcare and the factors that influence language choice for minority language speakers. Objectives This paper reports on the nurses, midwives and health visitors (NMHV) data set of the first phase of a large-scale national study, commissioned by the Welsh Assembly Government, to examine the nature and extent of Welsh language awareness amongst healthcare professionals in Wales, UK. Design The study involved a questionnaire survey of healthcare professionals working in the public, private and voluntary sectors of healthcare. Participants A stratified random sample of 3358 healthcare professionals was surveyed, of which 1842 (55%) were nurses, midwives and health visitors. The researcher-designed self-administered questionnaire was distributed by post to participants between July and September 2003. A total of 1042 (57%) NMHV returned their questionnaires for analysis. Results A strong positive correlation is identified between the NMHV use of the Welsh language in practice and their Welsh language proficiency ( p . 01 ); language attitudes ( p . 01 ); and language region ( p . 01 ). Mean language attitude scores are more positive than expected, particularly amongst those with limited Welsh language proficiency and those working in regions with the lowest proportions of Welsh speakers. Conclusions In view of the universal drive for culturally and linguistically appropriate healthcare practice, the findings have important implications for bilingual and multilingual healthcare settings worldwide. The evidence emerging from this survey confirms that cross-cultural communication is enhanced by NMHV language attitudes as well as their proficiency levels. Language awareness training is therefore recommended as a way of enhancing care delivery for minority language speakers.

Infection is an acknowledged hospital problem. Micro-organisms are disseminated mainly via hands but there is evidence that hand decontamination, the most important means of prevention, is performed too seldom, and not always after activities likely to result in heavy contamination. Nurses themselves are exposed to risks of infection, chiefly through contact with blood and body fluids, yet it has also been reported that gloves are not always worn during contact with patients' secretions and that the handling and disposal of sharp instruments may be performed unsafely. The study reported in this paper documents nursing behaviour in relation to hand decontamination, the use of gloves and sharps, taking into consideration a number of variables which could influence practice: availability of the expertise afforded by an infection-control nurse, clinical setting, nursing workload, knowledge and the resources available to control infection. Hands were decontaminated after 28.78% of patient contacts. Hands were decontaminated after 49.85% of activities likely to result in heavy contamination. Performance was related to nursing workload and the availability of hand decontaminating agents, especially when the nurses became busy. Use of gloves when they were available also proved good, with little evidence of wasteful use. The handling and disposal of sharps were commendable for most subjects but a few grossly unsafe incidents were nevertheless witnessed, apparently not associated with any of the variables examined.