Contact precautions for colonisation with multidrug-resistant organisms and haemodialysis patient quality of life and mood: a pilot case-control study

IF 0.4 Q4 NURSING Renal Society of Australasia Journal Pub Date : 2019-03-15 DOI:10.33235/RSAJ.15.1.19-25
R. Krishnasamy
{"title":"Contact precautions for colonisation with multidrug-resistant organisms and haemodialysis patient quality of life and mood: a pilot case-control study","authors":"R. Krishnasamy","doi":"10.33235/RSAJ.15.1.19-25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The rate of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) colonisation in dialysis populations has increased over time. This study aimed to assess the effect of contact precautions and isolation on quality of life and mood for haemodialysis (HD) patients colonised with MDRO.\nMethods: Patients undergoing facility HD completed the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL–SFTM), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Personal Wellbeing-Index Adult (PWI-A). Patients colonised with MDRO were case-matched by age and gender with patients not colonised.\nResults: A total of 16 MDRO-colonised patients were matched with 16 controls. Groups were well matched for demographics and co-morbidities, other than a trend for older dialysis vintage in the MDRO group [7.2 years (interquartile range 4.6–10.0) compared to 3.2 (1.4–7.6) years, p=0.05]. Comparing MDRO-positive with negative patients, physical (30.5±10.7 vs. 34.6±7.3; p=0.2) and mental (46.5±11.2 vs. 48.5±12.5; p = 0.6) composite scores were not different between groups. The MDRO group reported poorer sleep quality (p=0.01) and sleep patterns (p=0.05), and lower social function (p=0.02). BDI scores were similar (MDRO-positive 10(3.5–21.0) vs. MDRO-negative 12(6.5–16.0), p=0.6). PWI-A scores were also similar in both groups; however, MDRO patients reported lower scores for “feeling safe”, p=0.03.\nConclusion: While overall scores of quality of life and depression were similar between groups, the MDRO group reported poorer outcomes in sleep and social function. A larger cohort and qualitative interviews may give more detail of the impact of contact precautions and isolation on HD patients. The necessity for contact precautions for different MDRO needs consideration.","PeriodicalId":42629,"journal":{"name":"Renal Society of Australasia Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Renal Society of Australasia Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33235/RSAJ.15.1.19-25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: The rate of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) colonisation in dialysis populations has increased over time. This study aimed to assess the effect of contact precautions and isolation on quality of life and mood for haemodialysis (HD) patients colonised with MDRO. Methods: Patients undergoing facility HD completed the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL–SFTM), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Personal Wellbeing-Index Adult (PWI-A). Patients colonised with MDRO were case-matched by age and gender with patients not colonised. Results: A total of 16 MDRO-colonised patients were matched with 16 controls. Groups were well matched for demographics and co-morbidities, other than a trend for older dialysis vintage in the MDRO group [7.2 years (interquartile range 4.6–10.0) compared to 3.2 (1.4–7.6) years, p=0.05]. Comparing MDRO-positive with negative patients, physical (30.5±10.7 vs. 34.6±7.3; p=0.2) and mental (46.5±11.2 vs. 48.5±12.5; p = 0.6) composite scores were not different between groups. The MDRO group reported poorer sleep quality (p=0.01) and sleep patterns (p=0.05), and lower social function (p=0.02). BDI scores were similar (MDRO-positive 10(3.5–21.0) vs. MDRO-negative 12(6.5–16.0), p=0.6). PWI-A scores were also similar in both groups; however, MDRO patients reported lower scores for “feeling safe”, p=0.03. Conclusion: While overall scores of quality of life and depression were similar between groups, the MDRO group reported poorer outcomes in sleep and social function. A larger cohort and qualitative interviews may give more detail of the impact of contact precautions and isolation on HD patients. The necessity for contact precautions for different MDRO needs consideration.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多药耐药菌定植的接触预防措施与血液透析患者的生活质量和情绪:一项试点病例对照研究
背景:透析人群中耐多药生物(MDRO)的定植率随着时间的推移而增加。本研究旨在评估接触预防措施和隔离对MDRO定植的血液透析(HD)患者生活质量和情绪的影响。方法:接受设施HD的患者完成肾脏疾病生活质量(KDQOL–SFTM)、贝克抑郁量表(BDI)和成人个人幸福指数(PWI-A)。用MDRO定植的患者与未定植的病例按年龄和性别匹配。结果:共有16例MDRO定植患者与16例对照组相匹配。除了MDRO组透析年份较老的趋势外,各组在人口统计学和合并症方面匹配良好[7.2年(四分位间距4.6-10.0),而3.2年(1.4-7.6),p=0.05]。比较MDRO阳性和阴性患者,生理(30.5±10.7vs.34.6±7.3;p=0.02)和心理(46.5±11.2 vs.48.5±12.5;p=0.06)综合得分在各组之间没有差异。MDRO组的睡眠质量较差(p=0.01),睡眠模式较差(p=0.05),社会功能较低(p=0.02)。BDI评分相似(MDRO阳性10分(3.5-21.0)与MDRO阴性12分(6.5-16.0),p=0.06)。两组的PWI-A评分也相似;然而,MDRO患者在“感觉安全”方面的得分较低,p=0.03。结论:虽然两组之间的生活质量和抑郁的总体得分相似,但MDRO组在睡眠和社交功能方面的结果较差。更大规模的队列和定性访谈可能会提供更多关于接触预防措施和隔离对HD患者影响的细节。需要考虑不同MDRO接触预防措施的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
CARI guidelines: Culturally safe and clinical kidney care for First Nations Australians – A summary Bioelectrical impedance analysis for measuring body composition in an outpatient haemodialysis setting: a feasibility study Understanding burnout in the current nephrology nursing workforce and health service ‘magnet’ qualities that may help address it: a discreet choice experiment Prospective randomised crossover trial comparing mixed and post-dilution haemodiafiltration: COMPare HDF study Hepatitis B vaccination in patients with stage 4/5 chronic kidney disease – a scoping review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1