Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLuckett, Tim
dc.contributor.authorSpencer, Lucy
dc.contributor.authorPollock, Carol A
dc.contributor.authorLam, Lawrence
dc.contributor.authorSilvester, William
dc.contributor.authorSellars, Marcus
dc.contributor.authorDetering, Karen M
dc.contributor.authorButow, Phyllis N
dc.contributor.authorTong, Allison
dc.contributor.authorClayton, Josephine M
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-04
dc.date.available2017-05-04
dc.date.issued2016-02-16
dc.identifier.citationLuckett T, Spencer L, Morton RL, Pollock CA, Lam L, Silvester W, Sellars M, Detering KM, Butow PN, Tong A, Clayton JM. Advance care planning in chronic kidney disease: a survey of current practice in Australia. Nephrology (Carlton) 2017; 22(2): 139–`139.en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2123/16706
dc.description.abstractAim: Advance care planning (ACP) in nephrology is widely advocated but not always implemented. The aims of this study were to describe current ACP practice and identify barriers/facilitators and perceived need for health professional education and chronic kidney disease (CKD)-specific approaches. Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was administered online. Nephrology health professionals in Australia and New Zealandwere recruited via professional societies, email lists and nephrology conferences. Multiple regression explored the influence of respondents’ attributes on extent of involvement in ACP and willingness to engage in future. Results: A total of 375 respondents included nephrologists (23%), nurses (65%), social workers (4%) and others (8%) with 54% indicated that ACP at their workplace was performed ad hoc and 61% poorly. Perceived barriers included patient/family discomfort (84%), difficulty engaging families (83%), lack of clinician expertise (83%) and time (82%), health professional discomfort (72%), cultural/language barriers (65%), lack of private space (61%) and lack of formal policy/procedures (60%). Respondents overwhelmingly endorsed the need for more dialysis-specific ACP programs (96%) and education (95%). Whilst 85% thought ACP would be optimally performed by specially trained staff, comments emphasized that all clinicians should have a working proficiency. Respondents who were more willing to engage in future ACP tended to be non-physicians (odds ratio (OR) 4.96, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.74–14.07) and reported a greater need for CKD-specific ACP materials (OR 10.88, 95% CI 2.38–49.79). Conclusion: Advance care planning in nephrology needs support through education and CKD-specific resources. Endorsement by nephrologists is important. A multidisciplinary approach with a gradient of ACP expertise is also recommended.en_AU
dc.publisherAsian Pacific Society of Nephrologyen_AU
dc.relationKidney Health Australiaen_AU
dc.subjectchronic kidney diseaseen_AU
dc.subjectadvance care planningen_AU
dc.subjectconservative careen_AU
dc.subjectCurrent clinical practiceen_AU
dc.subjecthealth professional viewsen_AU
dc.subjectsurveyen_AU
dc.subjectnephrologyen_AU
dc.subjectnephrologistsen_AU
dc.titleAdvance care planning in chronic kidney disease: a survey of current practice in Australiaen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.type.pubtypePost-printen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.