IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i11-12p1639-1649.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A nurse‐coordinated model of care versus usual care for chronic kidney disease: meta‐analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Haidan Xu
  • Lisha Mou
  • Zhiming Cai

Abstract

Aim To investigate whether a nurse‐led care was more beneficial for implementing chronic kidney disease guidelines and improved multiple risk factors compared with the usual care. Background Several independent clinical trials have been carried out to demonstrate the efficiency of a nurse‐led care to improve the outcomes for patients with chronic kidney disease and address the risk factors for renal function decline. However, their results and conclusions were inconsistent. Methods A meta‐analysis was carried out on September 2015 based on previous studies that evaluated the efficiency of nurse‐led care model for patients with chronic kidney disease. Following quality appraisal, four randomised clinical trials that allocated patients with chronic kidney disease to usual care and nurse‐coordinated care were included. Primary outcomes, such as kidney failure and cardiovascular events, were analysed. Results Compared with the usual care group, a nurse‐coordinated care model reduced the risks of composite death, decreased the occurrence rate of end‐stage renal disease and doubled serum creatinine. On the contrary, a slight propulsive effect of nurse‐led interventional care occurred on acute myocardial infarction and heart failure. Limitations Only five studies were included and conducted nonstandard evaluating endpoints, causing fewer studies were categorised in each outcome events in this meta‐analysis, subsequently leading to heterogeneity and less persuasive. Conclusions Intensive interventions delivered by nurse coordinators are expected to benefit patients to attain longer life expectancy and higher life quality as well as to improve controlling risk factors implicated in chronic kidney disease progression. Relevance to clinical practice More government and hospitals should modify the traditional nursing routine based on this study, providing a more intensive nurse‐coaching care model for patients with chronic kidney disease, even aged or other chronic diseases, which shall further help to better control the risk factors and delay disease progression.

Suggested Citation

  • Haidan Xu & Lisha Mou & Zhiming Cai, 2017. "A nurse‐coordinated model of care versus usual care for chronic kidney disease: meta‐analysis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(11-12), pages 1639-1649, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:11-12:p:1639-1649
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13533
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13533?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yue‐Xian Shi & Xiao‐Yan Fan & Hui‐Juan Han & Qiu‐Xia Wu & Hong‐Jun Di & Ya‐Hong Hou & Yue Zhao, 2013. "Effectiveness of a nurse‐led intensive educational programme on chronic kidney failure patients with hyperphosphataemia: randomised controlled trial," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(7-8), pages 1189-1197, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van Schalkwyk, May CI & Bourek, Aleš & Kringos, Dionne Sofia & Siciliani, Luigi & Barry, Margaret M. & De Maeseneer, Jan & McKee, Martin, 2020. "The best person (or machine) for the job: Rethinking task shifting in healthcare," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(12), pages 1379-1386.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:11-12:p:1639-1649. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.