To Dialysis and Beyond: The Nephrologist's Responsibility for Advance Care Planning

Comparing Nephrologists' Self-Reported Decision-Making Skills and Treatment Attitudes With Their Patients' Experiences of Making Kidney Therapy Decisions and Receiving Nephrology Care

BACKGROUND

Dialysis is often initiated in the United States without exploring patients' preferred decision-making style, and conservative kidney management (CKM) is infrequently presented. To improve kidney therapy (KT) decision-making, research on nephrologists' comfort with various decision-making styles, attitudes towards CKM, and reports of patients' lived experiences with KT decision-making is needed.

METHODS

We surveyed 28 nephrologists and 58 of their patients aged ≥75 years. The nephrologist survey was designed to gauge their comfort levels with decision-making styles and attitudes towards CKM. The patient survey assessed experiences in making KT decisions.

RESULTS

The average age of nephrologists was 43 years, and that of patients was 82 years. Nephrologists rated themselves as comfortable with various decision styles: paternalistic (60.7%), shared decision-making (92.8%), and patient-driven decision-making (67.8%). Nearly 57% of nephrologists felt challenged or were neutral in determining CKM's suitability, and 39% reported difficulties in discussing CKM with patients or were neutral. Only 38 % of patients recalled discussing CKM with their nephrologists, and a minority reported discussing CKM-related topics such as life expectancy (24.7%), quality of life (QOL) (45.1%), and end-of-life care (17.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most nephrologists displayed comfort with various decision-making styles; however, many described difficulties in guiding patients toward CKM. In contrast, patients reported gaps in vital aspects of KT decision-making and CKM choices, such as discussions of life expectancy, QOL, and end-of-life care. Raising awareness of blind spots in decision-making skills and educating nephrologists in KT decision-making to include CKM and other person-centered aspects of care are needed.

Advance Care Planning Coaching in CKD Clinics: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Although guidelines recommend more and earlier advance care planning (ACP) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), scant evidence exists to guide incorporation of ACP into clinical practice for patients not yet requiring maintenance dialysis. Involving nephrology team members in addition to primary care providers in this important patient-centered process may increase its accessibility. Our objective was to examine the effect of coaching implemented in CKD clinics on patient engagement with ACP.

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter, pragmatic randomized control trial.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Three CKD clinics in different states participated. Eligible patients were 55 years or older, had stage 3-5 CKD, and were English speaking. 273 patients consented to participate, 254 were included in analysis.

INTERVENTION

Nurses or social workers with experience in nephrology or palliative care delivered individualized in-person ACP sessions. The enhanced control group was given Make Your Wishes About You (MY WAY) education materials and was verbally encouraged to bring their completed advance directives to the clinic.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcome measures were scores on a 45-point ACP engagement scale at 14 weeks and a documented advance directive or portable medical order at 16 weeks post-enrollment.

RESULTS

Among 254 participants analyzed, 46.5% were 65-74 years of age and 54% had CKD stage 3. Coached patients scored 1.9 points higher at 14 weeks on the ACP engagement scale (β = 1.87; CI: 0.13-3.64) adjusted for baseline score and site. Overall, 32.8% of intervention patients (41 of 125) had an advance directive compared to 17.8% (23 of 129) of patients in the comparison group. In a site-adjusted multivariable model, coached patients were 79% more likely to have a documented advance directive or portable medical order (adjusted risk ratio = 1.79; 95% CI: 1.18-2.72), with the impact principally evident at only one study site.

LIMITATIONS

Small number of study sites and possible unrepresentativeness of the broader CKD population by study participants.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Individualized coaching may be effective in enhancing ACP but its impact may be influenced by the healthcare environment where it is delivered.