A concept analysis of renal supportive care: the changing world of nephrology

Title. A concept analysis of renal supportive care: the changing world of nephrology

Aim. This paper is a report of a concept analysis of renal supportive care.

Background. Approximately 1.5 million people worldwide are kept alive by renal dialysis. As services are required to support patients who decide not to start or to withdraw from dialysis, the term renal supportive care is emerging. Being similar to the terms palliative care, end-of-life care, terminal care and conservative management, there is a need for conceptual clarity.

Method. Rodgers' evolutionary method was used as the organizing framework for this concept analysis. Data were collected from a review of CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and ASSIA (1806-2006) using, 'renal' and 'supportive care' as keywords. All articles with an abstract were considered. The World Wide Web was also searched in English utilizing the phrase 'renal supportive care'.

Results. Five attributes of renal supportive care were identified: available from diagnosis to death with an emphasis on honesty regarding prognosis and impact of disease; interdisciplinary approach to care; restorative care; family and carer support and effective, lucid communication to ensure informed choice and clear lines of decision-making.

Conclusion. Renal supportive care is a dynamic and emerging concept relevant, but not limited to, the end phase of life. It suggests a central philosophy underpinning renal service development that allows patients, carers and the multidisciplinary team time to work together to realize complex goals. It has relevance for the renal community and is likely to be integrated increasingly into everyday nephrology practice.

Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21)

Background
Restorative justice is “a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future” (Marshall 2003). Despite the increasing use of restorative justice programmes as an alternative to court proceedings, no systematic review has been undertaken of the available evidence on the effectiveness of these programmes with young offenders. Recidivism in young offenders is a particularly worrying problem, as recent surveys have indicated
the frequency of re-offences for young offenders has ranged from 40.2% in 2000 to 37.8% in 2007 (Ministry of Justice 2009)

Objectives
To evaluate the effects of restorative justice conferencing programmes for reducing recidivism in young offenders.

Search methods
We searched the following databases up to May 2012: CENTRAL, 2012 Issue 5, MEDLINE (1978 to current), Bibliography of Nordic Criminology (1999 to current), Index to Theses (1716 to current), PsycINFO (1887 to current), Social Sciences Citation Index (1970 to current), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to current), Social Care Online (1985 to current), Restorative Justice Online (1975 to current), Scopus (1823 to current), Science Direct (1823 to current), LILACS (1982 to current), ERIC (1966 to current), Restorative Justice Online (4May 2012),WorldCat (9May 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov (19May 2012) and ICTRP (19May 2012). ASSIA,National Criminal Justice Reference Service and Social Services Abstracts were searched up to May 2011. Relevant bibliographies, conference programmes and journals were also searched.

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of restorative justice conferencing versus management as usual, in young offenders.

Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and extracted the data. Where necessary, original investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.

Main results
Four trials including a total of 1447 young offenders were included in the review. Results failed to find a significant effect for restorative justice conferencing over normal court procedures for any of the main analyses, including number re-arrested (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.71; P = 0.99), monthly rate of reoffending (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.16; P = 0.61), young person’s remorse following conference (OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.10; P = 0.06), young person’s recognition of wrongdoing following conference (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 4.80; P = 0.14), young person’s self-perception following conference (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.63; P = 0.85), young person’s satisfaction following conference (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.07; P = 0.45) and victim’s satisfaction following conference (OR 4.05, 95%CI 0.56 to 29.04; P = 0.16). A small number of sensitivity analyses did indicate significant effects, although all are to be interpreted with caution.

Authors’ conclusions
There is currently a lack of high quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice conferencing for young offenders. Caution is urged in interpreting the results of this review considering the small number of included studies, subsequent low power and high risk of bias. The effects may potentially be more evident for victims than offenders. The need for further research in this area is highlighted.