Advanced CKD Care and Decision Making: Which Health Care Professionals Do Patients Rely on for CKD Treatment and Advice?

Association between person-centred care quality and advance care planning participation in haemodialysis

OBJECTIVE

Person-centred care (PCC), which incorporates patients' preferences and values for medical care and their life, has been proposed in decision-making for promoting advance care planning (ACP) among patients with kidney failure. Therefore, we aimed to examine variations in PCC across facilities and the association between PCC and ACP participation.

METHODS

This multicentre cross-sectional study included Japanese adults undergoing outpatient haemodialysis at six dialysis centres. The main exposure was PCC, measured using the 13-item Japanese version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool-short form. The main outcome was ACP participation as defined by discussion with the attending physician or written documentation or notes regarding treatment preferences. A general linear model was used to examine the covariates of the quality of PCC. Modified Poisson regression models were used to examine the associations of ACP participation.

RESULTS

A total of 453 individuals were analysed; 26.3% of them participated in ACP. Higher PCC was associated with greater ACP participation in a dose-response manner (adjusted prevalence ratios for the first to fourth quartiles: 1.36, 2.31, 2.64 and 3.10, respectively) in respondents with usual source of care (USC) than in those without USC. Among the PCC subdomains, first contact, longitudinality, comprehensiveness (services provided) and community orientation were particularly associated with ACP participation. A maximum of 12.0 points of facility variation was noted in the quality of PCC.

CONCLUSIONS

High quality of PCC was associated with ACP participation. The substantial disparity in PCC between facilities provides an opportunity to revisit the quality improvement in PCC.

Exploring Patient Needs and Preferences in CKD Education: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Key Points

This largest to date patient survey study explores what patients with kidney disease want to know about treatments, such as dialysis or conservative management. A surprising number of patients want extensive doctor-like education, but are willing to spend only several hours on education. Patients are notably open to online and digital educational modalities—technology may allow for individualized and ongoing patient education.

Background

Despite efforts to educate individuals with CKD and thereby improve outcomes, studies have shown that a significant number of patients still report poor CKD knowledge. Thus, understanding patient needs and preferences is crucial for the development and implementation of an effective CKD educational program.

Methods

A paper survey was distributed to patients with CKD 21 years and older at a tertiary care hospital's outpatient nephrology clinic in Rochester, NY. Data on patient demographics; print and technological literacies; and preferences regarding topics, instructors, class formats, session frequency, duration, and peer support were gathered.

Results

The mean age of 337 patients was 65 years (±12.33 years), and the self-identified races were American Indian or Alaska Native (<1%), Asian (3%), Black (12.17%), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (<1%), White (83%), and Other (2%). Most of the patients (69%) never needed help with health instructions, and 68% of patients used a smartphone or computer every day. Key topics identified by patients included the definitions of CKD, creatinine, and GFR and information on kidney diet. Seventy-three percent of patients desired more than basic CKD information, with one in five even wanting to know everything a doctor knows. Forty-six percent were willing to attend classes, and 33% preferred using digital (video, computer, or smartphone) modalities. Patients were willing to attend an average of 3.6 classes, and most preferred hour-long classes. Most of the patients (46%) preferred a doctor as the educator, and 53% expressed interest in connecting with fellow patients for peer support.

Conclusions

Most patients with CKD are interested in comprehensive education about their disease. This research may offer insights into the optimal content and delivery of CKD educational programs by elaborating on patients' needs and the integration of online modalities to deliver content. Future person-centered educational programs for people with CKD are needed.

Factors Associated With Non-vaccination for Influenza Among Patients With CKD: Findings From the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Vaccination for influenza is strongly recommended for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to their immunocompromised state. Identifying risk factors for not receiving an influenza vaccine (non-vaccination) could inform strategies for improving vaccine uptake in this high-risk population.

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal observational study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

3,692 Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study (CRIC) participants.

EXPOSURE

Demographic factors, social determinants of health, clinical conditions, and health behaviors.

OUTCOME

Influenza non-vaccination, which was assessed based on a receipt of influenza vaccine ascertained during annual clinic visits in a subset of participants who were under nephrology care.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Mixed-effects Poisson models to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (APRs).

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2020, the pooled mean vaccine uptake was 72% (mean age, 66 years; 44% female; 44% Black race). In multivariable models, factors significantly associated with influenza non-vaccination were younger age (APR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.85-2.52] for<50 vs≥75 years), Black race (APR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.43-1.75] vs White race), lower education (APR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.04-1.39 for less than high school vs college graduate]), lower annual household income (APR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06-1.49] for <$20,000 vs >$100,000), formerly married status (APR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.09-1.35] vs currently married), and nonemployed status (APR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.24] vs employed). In contrast, participants with diabetes (APR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.87] vs no diabetes), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (APR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.92] vs no COPD), end-stage kidney disease (APR, 0.64 [0.56 to 0.76] vs estimated glomerular filtration rate≥60mL/min/1.73m2), frailty (APR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-0.99] vs no frailty), and ideal physical activity (APR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.82-0.99] vs. physically inactive) were less likely to have non-vaccination status.

LIMITATIONS

Possible residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults with CKD receiving nephrology care, younger adults, Black individuals, and those with adverse social determinants of health were more likely to have the influenza non-vaccination status. Strategies are needed to address these disparities and reduce barriers to vaccination.

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Identifying risk factors for not receiving an influenza vaccine ("non-vaccination") in people living with kidney disease, who are at risk of influenza and its complications, could inform strategies for improving vaccine uptake. In this study, we examined whether demographic factors, social determinants of health, and clinical conditions were linked to the status of not receiving an influenza vaccine among people living with kidney disease and receiving nephrology care. We found that younger adults, Black individuals, and those with adverse social determinants of health were more likely to not receive the influenza vaccine. These findings suggest the need for strategies to address these disparities and reduce barriers to vaccination in people living with kidney disease.

Exploring the health-related decision-making experiences of people with chronic kidney disease and their caregivers: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to explore the decision-making experience of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their caregivers.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study of the decision-making experiences of individuals with stage 3-end-stage CKD and their family caregivers. One-on-one, semistructured interviews were conducted using a guide developed and approved by a community advisory group. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: (1) decisions triggered by declining health and broad in scope, (2) challenges to decision-making and (3) factors influencing decision-making. Participants' experiences with health-related decision-making demonstrated that decisions were triggered when health declined. Yet, decisions that impact disease progression were being made in stage 3. Decision-making was made difficult due to lack of information, complex co-morbidities, and poor resource utilization. However, the structure and nature of the medical appointment, supportive caregivers, and resources served to remove challenges.

CONCLUSION

Decision-support interventions must train patients and caregivers to be empowered participants in answer-seeking behaviours upstream of advanced illness.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS

This work was conducted in full collaboration with a community advisory board consisting of patients with CKD, caregivers and clinicians. These members are noted in the acknowledgement section, and those who worked with the team to develop the interview guide, study protocols, and manuscript preparation are included as authors. As part of their role, advisory members met monthly, providing input on recruitment, study progress, inclusion of diverse voices and added relevance to study findings.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Patient, Family Member, and Stakeholder Research Engagement: Insights from the PREPARE NOW Study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on patient, family member, and stakeholder patient-centered outcomes research engagement.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the research questions: (1) What is the impact of COVID-19 on the lives of patients with kidney disease and their families? (2) What is the impact of COVID-19 on research engagement for patient and family member research team members who are themselves at very high risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes? and (3) How can we help patients, family members, and stakeholder team members engage in research during COVID-19?

DESIGN

We conducted virtual semi-structured interviews with patient and family member co-investigators and kidney disease stakeholders from the PREPARE NOW study during November 2020. The interview guide included questions about participants' experiences with the impact of COVID-19 on research engagement.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven patient and family member co-investigators and eight kidney disease stakeholders involved in a kidney disease patient-centered outcomes research project participated in the interviews, data analysis, and writing this manuscript.

APPROACH

We used a content analysis approach and identified the main themes using an inductive process.

KEY RESULTS

Respondents reported three main ways that COVID-19 has impacted their lives: emotional impact, changing behaviors, and changes in health care delivery. The majority of respondents reported no negative impact of COVID-19 on their ability to engage in this research project. Suggestions for patient-centered outcomes research during COVID-19 and other emergencies include virtual research activities; active engagement; and promoting trust, honesty, transparency, and authenticity.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 has had a significant negative impact on patient, family member, and stakeholder research team members; however, this has not resulted in less research engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02722382.

Engaging patients and family members to design and implement patient-centered kidney disease research

We need more research projects that partner and engage with patients and family members as team members. Doing this requires that patients and family members set research priorities and fully participate in research teams. Models for this patient and family member engagement as research partners can help increase patient centered outcomes research. In this article, we describe how we have successfully engaged patients with kidney disease and family members as Co-Investigators on a 5-year research project testing a health system intervention to improve kidney disease care. Background This article describes a method for successful engagement of patients and family members in all stages of a 5-year comparative effectiveness research trial to improve transitions of care for patients from chronic kidney disease to end-stage kidney disease. Methods This project utilized the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's conceptual model for engagement with patients and family members. We conducted a qualitative analysis of grant planning meetings to determine patient and family member Co-Investigators' priorities for research and to include these engagement efforts in the research design. Patient and family member Co-Investigators partnered in writing this paper. Results Patients and family members were successfully engaged in remote and in-person meetings to contribute actively to research planning and implementation stages. Three patient-centered themes emerged from our data related to engagement that informed our research plan: kidney disease treatment decision-making, care transitions from chronic to end-stage kidney disease, and patient-centered outcomes. Conclusions The model we have employed represents a new paradigm for kidney disease research in the United States, with patients and family members engaged as full research partners. As a result, the study tests an intervention that directly responds to their needs, and it prioritizes the collection of outcomes data most relevant to patient and family member Co-Investigators. Trial registration NCT02722382 .

Fragmentation of care as a barrier to optimal ESKD management

Caring for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in the United States is challenging, due in part to the complex epidemiology of the disease's progression as well as the ways in which care is delivered. As CKD progresses toward ESKD, the number of comorbidities increases and care involves multiple healthcare providers from multiple subspecialties. This occurs in the context of a fragmented US healthcare delivery system that is traditionally siloed by provider specialty, organization, as well as systems of payment and administration. This article describes the role of care fragmentation in the delivery of optimal ESKD care and identifies research gaps in the evidence across the continuum of care. We then consider the impact of care fragmentation on ESKD care from the patient and health system perspectives and explore opportunities for system-level interventions aimed at improving care for patients with ESKD.