http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7342/877
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Sunanda Ray
a Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham B9 5SS, b Renal Unit, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital
Correspondence to: Dr S Smith, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5ST smiths@heartsol.wmids.nhs.uk
Despite guidance from the Department of Health and the Renal Association that
dialysis patients should be offered prophylaxis against hepatitis B
by immunisation, surveys have shown that 95% of renal units in
1994 and 49% in 1995 were not routinely offering immunisation to any
patient groups with chronic renal failure.1-4
We aimed to determine whether provision of hepatitis B immunisation
had improved after publication of the 1996 Department of Health
guidelines and to identify barriers to implementation of existing
guidelines.1
| |
Participants, methods, and results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We sent a postal questionnaire, piloted in five renal units, to the clinical directors of all 87 main UK renal units and satellites. The questionnaire (available on bmj.com) covered hepatitis B immunisation in patients with chronic renal failure, including those receiving renal replacement therapy; the number of cases of acute hepatitis B infection between 1997 and 1999; and reasons why patients might not be vaccinated.
Seventy eight (90%) units responded. Units in two teaching and four district general hospitals plus three satellites did not respond, despite reminders. Twelve units (15%) reported at least one incident of hepatitis B seroconversion in a dialysis patient. Twenty three units (29%) did not immunise any patient groups. A further six units offered immunisation only to patients planning treatment in hepatitis B endemic areas outside the United Kingdom.
Completeness of hepatitis B immunisation in dialysis patients was not known in 27 units (35%), less than 25% in 17 units (22%), 25-75% in 13 units (17%), and over 75% in 20 units (26%). Of the 55 units that provided immunisation, 70% gave the recommended higher dose of 40 µg whereas 30% gave the previously recommended dose of 20 µg. Most (72%) used the earlier schedule of doses at 0, 1, and 6 months instead of the recommended accelerated schedule of 0, 1, 2, and 12 months. The table lists the reasons why patients are not routinely immunised.
|
Thirty six units (46%) followed the Renal Association's recommendations on hepatitis B immunisation of patients with chronic renal failure; 42 did not. Fourteen units had developed their own policies. Eleven units (14%) mentioned alternative guidance on immunisation, including the Department of Health's "green book" on infectious diseases,1 the revised Rosenheim report (the draft Department of Health's policy in development),4 and the British National Formulary.
One unit feared that staff might become less careful with universal
precautions if all patients were immunised. Two units thought that
the heavy workload produced little benefit. One unit abandoned an
immunisation programme it had started after a seroconversion incident
in 1996, owing to logistical difficulties. Two units mentioned
difficulties in tracking patients who had been referred to general
practice; one unit reverted to immunisation through dialysis services
rather than primary care after seroconversion of a patient who had
been referred. Six units mentioned costs and funding as barriers. One
unit thought our survey would encourage provision of
funding.
| |
Comment |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Although the rate of hepatitis B immunisation of patients with chronic renal
failure in the United Kingdom has improved in recent years, most
renal units still fail to follow current guidance. Partial coverage
is the norm, and outmoded regimens are still used. The shared care
management of immunisation may be one solution, although this
requires good collaboration between primary and specialist care.
Strategies that may improve collaborative care are inclusion of
immunisation in service agreements, definition of responsibilities
for initiation of immunisation, follow up and evaluation of response,
payment to general practitioners, and regular audit and shared
feedback. The efficacy of the hepatitis B vaccine in end stage renal
disease needs investigation to encourage its use in dialysis
patients.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank all UK renal units who completed the study questionnaire and the staff at the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital.
Contributors: SS and JH had the original idea for this study. SR designed the study questionnaire and played a key part in data collection, data documentation, and analysis. TS participated in the study design, data collection, and analysis. SR and TS jointly wrote the paper. SS and JH edited the paper. SS will act as guarantor for the paper.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: None.
Competing interests: None declared.
The
questionnaire appears on bmj.com
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Department of Health. Immunisation against infectious disease 1996. London: Stationery Office, 1996. |
| 2. | Royal College of Physicians, Renal Association. Treatment of adult patients with renal failure. Recommended standards and audit measures. London: RCP, 1997:64-74. |
| 3. | Jibani MM, Heptonstall J, Walker AM, Bloodworth LO, Howard
AJ. Hepatitis B immunization in UK renal units: failure to put policy into
practice. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1994; 9: 1765-1768 |
| 4. | Draft good practice guidelines for the prevention and control of blood borne virus infection in renal dialysis and renal transplantation units. London: Department of Health and Public Health Laboratory Service (in press). |
(Accepted 29 August 2001)
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Read all Rapid Responses
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.