Search

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Dialysis patient care technicians (PCTs) provide essential, frontline care for patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. We qualitatively explored perceptions of the PCT job role, responsibilities, and training among current PCTs, non-PCT dialysis staff, and patients receiving hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Focus group study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Discussions were conducted in March-May 2023 among US PCTs, non-PCT staff, and patients. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Thematic analysis was conducted using inductive and deductive strategies. RESULTS: Seven focus groups (N = 36 participants) were conducted (3 with PCTs [n = 19], 2 with non-PCT staff [n = 6], and 2 with patients [n = 11]). Eight themes emerged: (1) value of PCT role is not reflected in job or organizational policies and structures; (2) PCTs play a flexible and often ill-defined role in dialysis clinics; (3) despite being in a position with high risk of burnout, PCTs find ways to persevere and provide high-quality care; (4) PCTs are often perceived as helpers or ancillary rather than an integral part of the dialysis care team; (5) PCT job training and qualifications are not standardized and often not commensurate with job expectations and responsibilities; (6) PCT-patient relationships are deeply valued, but boundaries can be fluid and become blurred because of the frequency and nature of dialysis care; (7) dialysis patients and staff are vulnerable to multilevel workplace safety issues; and (8) PCT-staff dynamics have a strong impact on employee morale, clinic efficiency, and patient satisfaction. LIMITATIONS: Non-English-speaking participants and physicians were excluded, limiting diversity in perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: PCTs play a multifaceted role in dialysis care that is highly valued among patients and staff but not always reflected in actual tasks performed by PCTs, training received by PCTs, or the respect afforded to PCTs. Our findings are actionable and can inform future intervention-based work aimed at improving the PCT role in US hemodialysis care.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Given the high burden of dementia in dialysis patients, the dialysis workforce needs to be prepared to provide high-quality, person-centered dementia care. We explored comfort with and knowledge of dementia among US dialysis care providers. STUDY DESIGN: Web-based survey. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Emails were sent to National Kidney Foundation and National Association of Nephrology Technicians/Technologists membership listservs (September 26, 2022-October 22, 2022). In total, 1,121 respondents had complete data for analysis (57%, 35-49 years; 62% female; 62%/22% White/African American) including 81 physicians, 61 advanced practice providers, 230 nurse managers, 260 nurses, 202 social workers, 195 dietitians, and 86 dialysis patient care technicians. EXPOSURES: Provider role, age, tenure, self-reported gender, previous dementia training, and awareness of dementia guidance. OUTCOMES: Dementia Knowledge (assessed using Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale [DKAS; score range, 0-25]). ANALYTIC APPROACH: Characteristics of respondents, comfort with dementia care, and dementia knowledge were summarized and tabulated overall and by role. Robust regression was used to obtain coefficients confidence intervals for the associations between characteristics and DKAS scores, adjusting for role and tenure. Free-text responses to an open-ended question about treating patients with dementia or cognitive impairment were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Dementia knowledge among US dialysis providers may be limited (overall DKAS score = 17; range, 13-21 across roles), despite most reporting knowing when patients had dementia (97%) and receiving training in dementia care (62%). Further, training may be inadequate: those who reported receiving dementia training had lower DKAS scores than those who reported not receiving training (β, -3.9; 95% CI, -4.4 to -3.4). Thematic analysis of open-ended responses suggested that the impact of dementia on dialysis care and management and treatment beyond dialysis care are challenging for providers. LIMITATIONS: Data were self-reported and limited information was gathered about quality, content, and timing of dementia training received. CONCLUSION: Many US dialysis care providers had suboptimal dementia knowledge, despite reporting being comfortable with providing dementia care and reporting they received prior training. Qualitative findings indicate complexity among providers regarding comfort with and knowledge of treating patients with cognitive impairment. Targeted training for the dialysis workforce in dementia knowledge and best practices for person-centered dementia care is warranted.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Technicians caring for patients receiving dialysis play a critical, frontline role in the care of patients receiving dialysis in the United States. We sought to provide a comprehensive description and identify correlates of US in-center hemodialysis facility patient care technician staffing patterns. STUDY DESIGN: This was an ecological study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: US facilities providing hemodialysis and reporting patient care technician staffing, identified using the US Renal Data System. EXPOSURES: Geography, year, and facility characteristics, including aggregated patient characteristics. OUTCOMES: The study outcome was facility-reported patient-to-patient care technician ratio. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We examined patient-to-patient care technician ratios by US state and over time and also estimated the differences in patient-to-patient care technician ratios associated with facility characteristics, using robust regression with adjustment for facility-level covariates. RESULTS: The median patient-to-patient care technician ratio among 6,862 US facilities in 2019 was 9.9 (25th-75th percentiles, 8.2-12.0). Median 2019 patient-to-patient care technician ratios varied substantially by US state and region. There was an overall decline (from 10.6 to 9.9) in median patient-to-patient care technician ratios from 2004 to 2019, whereas the percentage of positions that were unfilled increased (from 2.8% to 3.5%). After adjustment, large dialysis organization status (β, -0.42; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.23) and larger facility size (β, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.33) were associated with lower patient-to-patient care technician ratios. Higher patient-to-registered nurse (β, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94) and patient-to-social worker (β, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37-0.70) ratios, presence of licensed vocational nurses or licensed practical nurses at the clinic (β, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12), and location in a poverty area (β, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.44) were all associated with higher patient-to-patient care technician ratios. Aggregated patient characteristics of patients treated at the facilities were generally not associated with patient-to-patient care technician ratio after adjustment. LIMITATIONS: Limited causal inference and potential shifts in staffing after 2019. CONCLUSIONS: US dialysis facilities vary considerably in their patient care technician staffing by geography, over time, and by various facility characteristics. Further investigation of US patient care technician staffing is warranted and could lead to better, more stable dialysis staffing, improved staff and patient satisfaction, and higher quality of care.