Conversion of temporary hemodialysis catheters to tunneled hemodialysis catheters

2005 ◽  
Vol 63 (03) ◽  
pp. 209-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Falk ◽  
S. Parthasarathy
Keyword(s):  
Temporary Hemodialysis Catheters

Switching temporary hemodialysis catheters to long-term catheters: exchange versus de-novo placement, any difference in line infection?

2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (11) ◽  
pp. 248-253
Author(s):  
Maen aboul Hosn ◽  
Zeina Nasser ◽  
Elias Elias ◽  
Walid Medawar ◽  
Majida Daouk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
De Novo ◽  
Line Infection ◽  
Temporary Hemodialysis Catheters

Survey of non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter clinical practice and training

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 507-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina M Yuan ◽  
James D Oliver ◽  
Dustin J Little ◽  
Rajeev Narayan ◽  
Lisa K Prince ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Training Program ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Simulation Training ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Completion Rates ◽  
Emergency Procedure ◽  
Hemodialysis Catheter ◽  
Important Barrier ◽  
Temporary Hemodialysis Catheters ◽  
And Training

Background:Nephrologists are placing fewer non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheters. Requiring competence for nephrology fellow graduation is controversial.Methods:Anonymous, online survey of all graduates from a single, military nephrology training program (n = 81; 1985–2017) and all US Nephrology program directors (n = 150).Results:Graduate response and completion rates were 59% and 100%, respectively; 93% agreed they had been adequately trained; 58% (26/45) place non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheters, independent of academic practice or time in practice, but 12/26 did ⩽5/year and 23/26 referred some or all. The most common reason for continuing non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter placement was that it is an essential emergency procedure (92%). The single most significant barrier was time to do the procedure (49%). Program director response and completion rates were 50% and 79%, respectively. The single most important barrier to fellow competence was busyness of the service (36%), followed by disinterest (21%); 55% believed that non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter insertion competence should be required, with 81% indicating it was an essential emergency procedure. The majority of graduates and program directors agreed that simulation training was valuable; 76% of programs employ simulation. Graduates who had simulation training and program directors with ⩽20 years of practice were significantly more likely to agree that simulation training was necessary.Conclusion:Of the graduate respondents from a single training program, 58% continue to place non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheters; 55% of program directors believe non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter procedural competence should be required. Graduates who had non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter simulation training and younger program directors consider simulation training necessary. These findings should be considered in the discussion of non-tunneled temporary hemodialysis catheter curriculum requirements.

scholarly journals Temporary hemodialysis catheters: recent advances

2014 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 888-895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward G. Clark ◽  
Jeffrey H. Barsuk
Keyword(s):  
Recent Advances ◽  
Temporary Hemodialysis Catheters

scholarly journals Malfunctioning Temporary Hemodialysis Catheters in Patients with COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Kanitra ◽  
Alexandra D. Power ◽  
R. David Hayward ◽  
Jimmy C. Haouilou ◽  
Elango Edhayan
Keyword(s):  
Temporary Hemodialysis Catheters
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document