Comparison of the effect of linear and step-wise sodium and ultrafiltration profiling on dialysis adequacy in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Patients with chronic renal failure undergoing hemodialysis (HD) need to receive adequate dialysis. Dialysis inadequacy leads to an increase in the side effects and even frequent hospitalizations as well as increased therapeutic costs. Considering the fact that improving the adequacy of dialysis is one of the goals of nursing care in these patients, this study aimed to compare the effect of linear and step-wise sodium-ultrafiltration (UF) profiling on HD adequacy. This study is a clinical trial; a total of 32 patients from two dialysis centers in East Azerbaijan province were selected and randomly divided into two groups. Each patient underwent HD for three sessions by routine method, three sessions by linear sodium profile and UF, and three sessions by the step-wise sodium profile and UF. At the end of each HD method, Kt/V was calculated to determine the adequacy of dialysis. Data analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software version 13 with generalized estimating equation statistical test. According to the results of this study, there was a statistically significant difference between the mean of adequacy of dialysis (Kt/V) in the three treatment methods (P <0.05), in which the mean score of dialysis adequacy in step-wise method was 0.14 more than the routine method, and in the linear method, it was 0.21 more than the routine method. The mean Kt/V scores were 1.24, 1.31, and 1.10 in the step-wise method, linear method, and routine method, respectively(P <0.05). The results of this study indicate that simultaneous application of sodium and UF profiles is effective in the hemodynamic stability of patients, which reduces uncomfortable complications during dialysis. Therefore, in order to improve dialysis adequacy and prevent the complications, usage of sodium and UF profiles is recommended.

Experiences of Iranian Nursing Students Regarding Their Clinical Learning Environment

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explain the experiences of Iranian nursing students regarding their clinical learning environment (CLE). METHODS: Twenty-one nursing students participated in this qualitative study. Data were collected using semistructured interviews and analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of interviews identified six categories: educational confusion, absence of evaluation procedures, limited educational opportunities, inappropriate interactions with nursing staff, bullying culture, and discrimination. Systematic and consistent methods were not used in clinical education and evaluation of nursing students. In addition, there were inadequate interactions between nursing students and health-care staff, and most students experienced discrimination and bullying in clinical settings. CONCLUSION: Findings showed that the CLE of Iranian nursing students may be inadequate for high-level learning and safe and effective teaching. Addressing these challenges will require academic and practice partnerships to examine the systems affecting the CLE, and areas to be addressed are described in the six themes identified.