Nursing Diagnoses and Interventions in the Field of Action for Patients Undergoing Renal Replacement Therapy: A Scoping Review.
Miguel Angel Cuevas-Budhart, José Ramón Paniagua Sierra, Renata Cedillo-Flores and 6 others
PMID 40745601WHAT IT FOUND
Nurses caring for kidney replacement therapy patients can map 55 nursing diagnoses and 76 interventions to functional patterns, with infection, fluid volume, knowledge and self-care needs recurring.
Key findings
01The review included nine studies of patients with chronic kidney disease receiving haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or kidney transplantation.
02After excluding diagnoses and interventions not specific to renal replacement therapy, experts agreed on 55 nursing diagnoses and 76 interventions.
03Included studies repeatedly identified risk of infection, fluid volume problems, knowledge deficit, pain, and mobility or self-care deficits.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only nine studies met inclusion criteria, and eight were from Brazil with one from Turkey, so the list may not fit other healthcare systems or cultural contexts. The evidence base is uneven: five studies were about haemodialysis, three about transplantation and one about peritoneal dialysis. No meta-analysis or pooled effect estimates were done, so the review maps nursing language rather than testing outcomes. The final list depends on expert consensus and excludes diagnoses and interventions judged not specific to renal replacement therapy. Included studies used different designs and sample sizes, and the review reports no patient outcomes or effectiveness results.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the 55 diagnoses and 76 interventions as evidence that using them improves patient outcomes. This was a scoping review and expert consensus, not a trial or meta-analysis of effectiveness.