DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Factors Associated with Quality Control of Hemodialysis Treatment

혈액투석의 질 관리에 영향을 미치는 요인

  • Kim, Kyung Sook (Seoyeong University School of Nursing) ;
  • Lee, Sun Hee (Department of Preventive Medicine, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine) ;
  • Ryu, Dong Ryeol (Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital)
  • 김경숙 (서영대학교 간호학과) ;
  • 이선희 (이화여자대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 류동열 (이대목동병원 신장내과)
  • Received : 2013.12.23
  • Accepted : 2014.05.03
  • Published : 2014.10.01

Abstract

Background/Aims: The number of patients with end-stage renal disease in Korea is increasing annually with 63,341 patients in 2011 with 42,596 of these patients undergoing hemodialysis. The purpose of this study was to present a quality control plan for hemodialysis treatment. Methods: We analyzed 616 hemodialysis units in 2010. The difference between hospitals was analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and the Kruskal-Wallis H test. The factors related to outcome indicators were subjected to multiple regression analysis. Results: The average proportion of physicians with a specialty in hemodialysis was 71.3% and the proportion of nurses with > 2 years experience in hemodialysis units was 76.3%. The average number of hemodialysis sessions performed per day by a physician was 23 and that of a nurse was 4.5. The rate of specialist physicians was significantly related to adequate diastolic blood pressure, integrated outcome indicator, and Hb levels (p < 0.05). Hemodialysis sessions performed by a nurse were significantly related to Hb levels of patients and integrated outcome indicator (p < 0.05). The integrated outcome indicator was significantly related to specialist physicians, the number of hemodialysis sessions performed by a nurse, and compliance with a hemodialysis adequacy and water test cycles (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The appropriate rate of specialist physicians and nurses is important for quality control of hemodialysis treatment. Proper facilities and equipment, as well as regular monitoring of the patient's condition, are also critical. This will require improved indicators and assessment reliability.

목적: 국내 말기 신부전 환자 수는 매년 증가하여 2011년 63,341명이며, 이 중 혈액투석 환자는 42,596명이다. 말기 신부전 환자는 질병으로 인한 이환기간이 길어 평생 혈액투석 치료를 받아야 하므로 혈액투석 질 관리가 중요하다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 전체 혈액투석 기관에 대한 국가단위의 평가인 혈액투석 적정성 평가 결과를 분석함으로써 혈액투석의 질 관리에 영향을 미치는 요인을 파악하고자 한다. 방법: 본 연구에서는 총 616개소의 2010년 혈액투석 적정성 평가 결과를 분석하였다. SPSS 21.0을 활용하여 의료기관 종별에 따른 차이를 ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis H 검정으로 분석하였고 혈액투석의 결과에 영향을 미치는 요인을 파악하기 위해 다중회귀분석을 실시하였다. 결과: 연구 대상 기관의 혈액투석 전문의사 비율은 평균 71.3%이고 2년 이상 혈액투석 경력을 가진 간호사 비율은 평균 76.3%였으며 의사 1인당 1일 평균 투석횟수는 23회, 간호사 1인당 1일 평균 투석횟수는 4.5회로 나타났다. 혈액투석 결과지표에 영향을 미치는 요인을 파악한 결과, 혈액투석 전문의사 비율이 높을수록 혈색소 10 g/dL 이상인 환자 비율, 이완기 혈압 충족률, 종합 결과지표 충족률은 유의하게 높았고 의사 1인당 1일 평균 투석횟수가 많으면 Ca ${\times}$ P 충족률이 낮았다(p < 0.05). 또한 간호사 1인당 1일 평균 투석횟수가 높을수록 혈색소 10 g/dL 이상인 환자 비율과 종합 결과지표 충족률이 낮았다. 혈액투석 적절도 검사 주기를 충족하면 혈액투석 적절도 충족률, 철저장능 충족률, 종합 결과지표 충족률, 혈색소 10 g/dL 이상인 환자 비율이 높게 나왔으며, 철분제 투여율이 높을수록 대부분의 결과지표 충족률이 높게 나와 통계적으로 유의하였다(p < 0.05). 또한 종합 결과지표 충족률이 높기 위해서는 혈액투석 전문의사 비율과 철분제 투여율이 높고, 간호사 1인당 1일 평균 투석횟수가 낮아야 하며 혈액투석 적절도 검사 및 수질 검사 실시주기를 정기적으로 시행해야 하는 것으로 나타났다(p < 0.05). 결론: 혈액투석의 질 관리를 위해서는 적정 혈액투석 전문의사 비율과 간호사 인력 충족이 중요하며 시설이나 장비, 환자 상태에 대한 주기적인 모니터링 및 환자에게 맞는 적절한 처방이 중요하다. 따라서 현행 심사평가원의 혈액투석 적정성 평가 지표를 관련 단체와의 협의를 통해 보다 현실적인 지표로의 개선 및 평가의 신뢰성을 확보하는 것이 필요하다. 또한 환자에게 철분제 투여 등이 지장받지 않도록 2001년부터 지속된 정액수가제에 대한 제고 및 주기적인 점검이 필요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Jin DC. Current status of dialysis therapy in Korea. Korean J Intern Med 2011;26:123-131. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2011.26.2.123
  2. Jin DC. Current status of dialysis therapy for ESRD patients in Korea. J Korean Med Assoc 2013;56:562-568. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2013.56.7.562
  3. Yang CW. Current status and future in patients with end stage renal disease in Korea. J Korean Med Assoc 2013;56:560-561. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2013.56.7.560
  4. Korean Statistical Information Service. National statistics [Internet]. Daejeon (KR): Korean Statistical Information Service, c2014 [cited 2014 Mar 3]. Available from: http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsList_01List.jsp.
  5. Ministry of Health & Welfare. Criteria of payment in Medical Aid. Ministry of Health & Welfare Notice No 2013-133. Sejong (KR): Ministry of Health & Welfare, c2013 [cited 2013 Sept 13]. Available from: http://www.mw.go.kr/front_new/jb/sjb0402vw.jsp.
  6. Lee SH, Kim HJ, Shin SH, Cho WH, Kang HY. Impacts of implementing case payment system to medical aid hemodialysis patients on dialysis frequencies and expenditure. J Prev Med Public Health 2004;37:260-266.
  7. Lee SH. The Issues and Improvement Plan of DRG Payment System Introduction for Renal Disease. Seoul: Ewha Womans University, 2010.
  8. Park GS. Improving Payment System for Medical Aid Patients Who Get Hemodialysis Treatment. Jinju: Kyeongsang National University, 2007.
  9. Son SW. The problems of health insurance related dialysis. Kidney Res Clin Pract 2003;22:S392-405.
  10. Lee YK, Kim SY, Baek SJ, et al. Prevalence of anemia and calcium-phosphorus abnormalities in hemodialysis patients in southwestern Seoul. Korean J Med 2013;85:378-384. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjm.2013.85.4.378
  11. Estrella MM, Jaar BG, Cavanaugh KL, et al. Perceptions and use of the national kidney foundation KDOQI guidelines: a survey of U.S. renal healthcare providers. BMC Nephrol 2013;14:230. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-14-230
  12. Arenas MD, Lorenzo S, Alvarez-Ude F, Angoso M, Lopez- Revuelta K, Aranaz J. Quality control systems implementation in the Spanish Dialysis Units. Nefrologia 2006;26:234-245.
  13. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. 2010 Report of Healthcare Benefit Quality Assessment. Seoul: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service, 2011.
  14. Lee SH. Policy Evaluation and Recommendation for Quality Evaluation on Health Care Insurance Area. Seoul: Ewha Womans University, 2006.
  15. Lee YK, Kim KW, Kim DJ. Current status and standards for establishment of hemodialysis units in Korea. Korean J Intern Med 2013;28:274-284. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2013.28.3.274
  16. Lee YK. Establishment of Standards for Hemodialysis Unit Accreditation in Korea: Survey Research. Chuncheon: Hallym University, 2011.
  17. Ministry of Health & Welfare. Amendment of Reimbursement Act and Relative Value Score in Health Insurance [Press Release]. Sejong: Ministry of Health & Welfare, 2011.
  18. Plantinga LC, Fink NE, Sadler JH, et al. Frequency of patient- physician contact and patient outcomes in hemodialysis care. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15:210-218. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASN.0000106101.48237.9D
  19. Needleman J, Buerhaus P, Mattke S, Stewart M, Zelevinsky K. Nurse-staffing levels and the quality of care in hospitals. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1715-1722. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa012247
  20. Kim MS, Kwon KJ, Choi SH. Study on nursing staff calculation using system dynamics. J Korean Clin Nurs Res 2008;14:71-81.
  21. Fishbane S, Goldman R. Quality outcomes and obstacles to their achievement in end-stage renal disease. Semin Dial 2002;15:30-34. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-139x.2002.00011.x
  22. Hemodialysis Adequacy 2006 Work Group. Clinical practice guidelines for hemodialysis adequacy, update 2006. Am J Kidney Dis 2006;48(Suppl 1):S2-90. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.03.051
  23. Kim SN, Choi KB. Realtionship between dialysis adequacy and anemia in patients with hemodialysis. Korean J Nephrol 2003;22:420-425.
  24. Chertow GM, Levin NW, Beck GJ, et al. In-center hemodialysis six times per week versus three times per week. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2287-2300. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1001593
  25. Locatelli F, Pisoni RL, Akizawa T, et al. Anemia management for hemodialysis patients: Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) guidelines and Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) findings. Am J Kidney Dis 2004;44(5 Suppl 2):27-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6386(04)01102-3
  26. National Kidney Foundation. NKF KDOQI Guidelines [Internet]. New York (US): National Kidney Foundation, c2013 [cited 2013 Nov 29]. Available from: http://www.kidney.org/professionals/KDOQI/guidelines.
  27. Levey AS, Coresh J, Balk E, et al. National Kidney Foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:137-147. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-139-2-200307150-00013
  28. Koo JR, Kim MB, Park KY, et al. The status of blood pressure control and the effect of dialysis adequacy on blood pressure in chronic hemodialysis patients. Korean J Med 1999;56:620-628.
  29. IV. NKF-K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for anemia of chronic kidney disease: update 2000. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;37(1 Suppl 1):S182-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6386(01)70008-X
  30. Ministry of Health & Welfare. Information of law [Internet]. Sejong (KR): Ministry of Health & Welfare, c2014 [cited 2014 Mar 3]. Available from: http://www.mw.go.kr/front_new/jb/sjb0403vw.jsp.

Cited by

  1. 일차의료기관 혈액투석실 간호사의 간호근무환경, 환자안전문화 및 환자안전간호활동의 관계 vol.27, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.22705/jkashcn.2020.27.3.250