Mrs COLETTE WEMBENYUI1,2, Ms EMILY LARSEN1,3, NICOLE MARSH1,3, AMANDA CORLEY1,3,4, ANN BONNER1,2
1 SCHOOL OF NURSING AND MIDWIFERY, GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, 2 KIDNEY HEALTH SERVICE, METRO NORTH HEALTH, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, 3NURSING AND MIDWIFERY RESEARCH CENTRE, ROYAL BRISBANE WOMEN’S HOSPITAL, HERSTON, AUSTRALIA, 4DIVISION OF SURGERY, PRINCESS ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL, WOOLLOONGABBA, AUSTRALIA
Biography:
I am a Registered Nurse at the Herston Dialysis Unit and a Clinical Nurse in the Transplant Service within the Kidney Health Service, Brisbane, Australia, and a PhD candidate at Griffith University. Drawing on my background in robustly testing the chronic kidney disease self‑management instrument for use in Australia, my research in primary healthcare, and my clinical expertise within the Kidney Health Service, I am passionate about producing research that is accessible, impactful, and grounded in the lived experiences of the people it serves.
Abstract:
Background: Vascular access is essential for haemodialysis, yet evidence for effective education interventions to support self‑management remains limited. With nursing support, patients can develop skills to self-manage their vascular access.
Aim: To use a co-design process to develop a vascular access self-management education intervention for adults receiving haemodialysis.
Method: Informed by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM‑B) model to identify support needs for self‑management behaviours, consumers (patients and carers/family members) and clinicians (pre-dialysis educators, haemodialysis nurses, a social worker, nephrologist, and vascular access coordinator) will participate in three co-design workshops. Two initial workshops are being conducted separately, followed by a third joint workshop for priority alignment. Workshops are audio-recorded for subsequent thematic analysis.
Results: The consumer workshop highlighted the need for clearer, more accessible and consistent education to support routine vascular access care and build confidence in managing complications. Participants reported that current information is often fragmented, difficult to understand, or delivered at suboptimal times. They expressed a preference for practical, easy‑to‑follow guidance tailored to different learning needs and delivered in formats that supports ongoing self‑management. These findings will inform the clinician and joint workshops.
Conclusion: The co‑design process is generating insights that will directly inform the intervention’s content, design and delivery. This collaborative, theory‑informed process enhances person-centred nephrology care, clinical relevance and responsiveness. The co-designed education intervention will be tested in a feasibility randomised controlled trial to assess acceptability and practicality in readiness for a larger trial.