Study of therapeutic patient education practices in French renal transplantation centres

Camille Boissiere; Tristan Rallon; Cécile Vigneau; Elouan Demay; Claire Chatron; Astrid Bacle

doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2023-004006

Study of therapeutic patient education practices in French renal transplantation centres

Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2024 Mar 1:ejhpharm-2023-004006. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2023-004006. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Camille Boissiere¹, Tristan Rallon¹, Cécile Vigneau², Elouan Demay¹, Claire Chatron³, Astrid Bacle^{4

2}

Affiliations

¹ Pôle Pharmacie, Service Hospitalo-Universitaire de Pharmacie, CHU Rennes, Rennes, 35000, Rennes, France.
² Univ Rennes, CHU Rennes, INSERM, EHESP, Irset-UMR_S 1085, IRSET, 35000, Rennes, Bretagne, France.
³ CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
⁴ Pôle Pharmacie, Service Hospitalo-Universitaire de Pharmacie, CHU Rennes, Rennes, 35000, Rennes, France astrid.bacle@univ-rennes1.fr.

PMID: 38429078
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2023-004006

Abstract

Objectives: Therapeutic patient education (TPE) plays a critical role in the management of kidney transplant recipients. However, discrepancies exist in the guidance provided regarding the usage of immunosuppressants across different kidney transplant centres in France.

Methods: To assess the current landscape of TPE practices in this patient population, an online questionnaire consisting of 51 questions was distributed to 32 French renal transplantation centres.

Results: The participation rate in our survey was 96.9%, (31 of the 32 centres contacted). The respondents had diverse professions: they were nurses (15/31), physicians (9/31) and pharmacists (7/31). Virtually all institutions have implemented TPE initiatives, with an implementation rate of 93.5% (29/31). The topic of anti-rejection medication was consistently addressed, with only one centre not providing support at the conclusion of these sessions. However, the content of the sessions varied significantly from one centre to another, particularly regarding the proper management of anti-rejection medications. Only 19.4% (6/31) of the centres provided the correct recommendation regarding fasting when taking tacrolimus. Dietary guidance was a topic covered in 89.7% (26/29) of the centres, but significant divergences were also observed. TPE teams primarily consisted of nurses, with pharmacists present in only 51.6% (16/31) of the centres. We also observed limited involvement of patient partners, with just 9.7% (3/31) of the centres including them in their programme.

Conclusion: These findings highlight considerable variability in the approach towards TPE among kidney transplant centres. Addressing counselling variability and increasing pharmacist and patient partner involvement is an essential step to improving the quality and effectiveness of TPE. By establishing a standardised and comprehensive approach to patient education, healthcare providers can ensure that kidney transplant recipients receive information that will ultimately help them improve their health and well-being.

Keywords: EDUCATION, PHARMACY; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; PHARMACY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; Professional Competence.