Title
How Well Do Kidney Transplant Patients Understand Their Medications and Does Real-Time Assessment of Knowledge Improve Retention of Information?
Recommended Citation
Clark B, Sirandas B, Larson T, Carlson A, Traax C, Ramirez DD, Smith L, and Hall I. How Well Do Kidney Transplant Patients Understand Their Medications and Does Real-Time Assessment of Knowledge Improve Retention of Information? Am J Transplant 2019; 19:1040.
Document Type
Conference Proceeding
Publication Date
2019
Publication Title
Am J Transplant
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the impact that early formal assessment and reteaching have on patient medication knowledge after renal transplant. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study performed at an academic medical center. Patients included were adult, first-time, English speaking, renal transplant recipients (N=49). All patients received immunosuppressive regimens of tacrolimus IR, mycophenolate, and prednisone upon discharge. Transplant pharmacists completed standard discharge education for all patients. The study group (SG) took an assessment (Image 1) immediately following education that the pharmacist then reviewed with the patient. The control group (CG) did not receive this assessment. All patients received an assessment to evaluate retention of information at their postop day 30 appointments. Scores on this assessment were compared to determine if reinforcing information on the first assessment improved retention of information in the SG. Correlation between patient characteristics and assessment scores was assessed using a Poisson regression. Results: With the exception of patient age, baseline characteristics were similar between groups (Table 1). Average patient age was higher in the CG (p=0. 009). Median assessment scores for patients in the SG were higher than those in the CG (8. 6vs 7. 9; p=0. 035). However, Poisson regression showed no association between SG assignment and assessment score (p=0. 39). No patient specific factors influenced assessment scores. There was a nonsignificant trend towards fewer 30day readmis-sions in the SG than in the CG (3 vs 6; p=0. 27). There were no allograft failures or deaths in either group. Conclusions: Implementation of formal post transplant education assessment and reteaching improved retention scores. Though these findings were not statistically significant, a larger sample size or alternative methods may be needed to further define this relationship. Further study is warranted to determine if there are patient characteristics that impact comprehension of information or if alternative teaching strategies may be beneficial.
Volume
19
First Page
1040
