Search

Objective: The purpose of the study was to test a novel approach to monitoring the adherence of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients to their dialysis prescription., Design: A descriptive observational study was done in which exchange behaviors were monitored over a 2-week period of time., Setting: Patients were recruited from an outpatient dialysis center., Participants: A convenience sample of patients undergoing CAPD at Piedmont Dialysis Center in Winston-Salem, North Carolina was recruited for the study. Of 31 CAPD patients, 20 (64.5%) agreed to participate., Measures: Adherence of CAPD patients to their dialysis prescription was monitored using daily logs and an electronic monitoring device (the Medication Event Monitoring System, or MEMS; APREX, Menlo Park, California, U.S.A.). Patients recorded in their logs their exchange activities during the 2-week observation period. Concurrently, patients were instructed to deposit the pull tab from their dialysate bag into a MEMS bottle immediately after performing each exchange. The MEMS bottle was closed with a cap containing a computer chip that recorded the date and time each time the bottle was opened., Results: One individual's MEMS device malfunctioned and thus the data presented in this report are based upon the remaining 19 patients. A significant discrepancy was found between log data and MEMS data, with MEMS data indicating a greater number and percentage of missed exchanges. MEMS data indicated that some patients concentrated their exchange activities during the day, with shortened dwell times between exchanges. Three indices were developed for this study: a measure of the average time spent in noncompliance, and indices of consistency in the timing of exchanges within and between days. Patients who were defined as consistent had lower scores on the noncompliance index compared to patients defined as inconsistent (p = 0.015)., Conclusions: This study describes a methodology that may be useful in assessing adherence to the peritoneal dialysis regimen. Of particular significance is the ability to assess the timing of exchanges over the course of a day. Clinical implications are limited due to issues of data reliability and validity, the short-term nature of the study, the small sample, and the fact that clinical outcomes were not considered in this methodology study. Additional research is needed to further develop this data-collection approach.

Process evaluation can identify program components that are related to success, that are generalizable to other settings, and that improve future applications of the program. The Partners for Prevention pilot project tested an office-based system aimed at increasing cancer prevention and screening in primary care offices and involving 17 physicians in private practice. Process evaluation techniques included monitoring systems, satisfaction surveys, and focus groups with the program participants. Each evaluation technique provided different information concerning strategies. The program was difficult to implement on busy days, the materials were useful but needed more flexibility, communication between patient and physician was facilitated, and the office coordinator was a crucial person. Program philosophy was acceptable, but materials needed refinement. The flow sheet and patient health check have been dramatically simplified and customized. New strategies are being tested in a randomized control trial.

This study determined the extent to which medical faculty agreed when rating options in two written patient management problems in diabetes mellitus. Another purpose was to determine whether option weights (used for scoring) based on the consensus ratings of faculty actually predict the choices of well-qualified physicians. Experts showed better-than-chance agreement but with considerable variation from one part of a problem to another (31% to 73%). Nevertheless, consensus ratings were very accurate predictors of the decisions of endocrinology fellows (correlations from .60 to .97). When scoring weights are assigned to options in patient management problems, consensus (average) ratings of experts are likely to demonstrate high concurrent validity for well-qualified clinicans.