The relationship between dialysis performance measures: adequacy and anemia management

Referral for Kidney Transplantation and Indicators of Quality of Dialysis Care: A Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Dialysis facility performance measures to improve access to kidney transplantation are being considered. Referral of patients for kidney transplantation evaluation by the dialysis facility is one potential indicator, but limited data exist to evaluate whether referral is associated with existing dialysis facility quality indicators.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

12,926 incident (July 2005 to September 2011) adult (aged 18-69 years) patients treated at 241 dialysis facilities with complete quality indicator information from US national registry data linked to transplantation referral data from all 3 Georgia kidney transplantation centers.

FACTORS

Facility performance on dialysis quality indicators (high, intermediate, and low tertiles).

OUTCOME

Percentages of patients referred within 1 year of dialysis therapy initiation at dialysis facility.

RESULTS

Overall, a median of 25.4% of patients were referred for kidney transplantation within 1 year of dialysis therapy initiation. Higher facility-level referral was associated with better performance with respect to standardized transplantation ratio (high, 28.6%; intermediate, 25.1%; and low, 22.9%; P=0.001) and percentage waitlisted (high, 30.7%; intermediate, 26.8%; and low, 19.2%; P<0.001). Facility-level referral was not associated with indicators of quality of care associated with dialysis therapy initiation, including percentage of incident patients being informed of transplantation options. For most non-transplantation-related indicators of high-quality care, including those capturing mortality, morbidity, and anemia management, better performance was not associated with higher facility-level transplantation referral.

LIMITATIONS

Potential ecologic fallacy and residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplantation referral among patients at dialysis facilities does not appear to be associated with overall quality of dialysis care at the facility. Quality indicators related to kidney transplantation were positively associated with, but not entirely correspondent with, higher percentages of patients referred for kidney transplantation evaluation from dialysis facilities. These results suggest that facility-level referral, which is within the control of the dialysis facility, may provide information about the quality of dialysis care beyond current indicators.

Effect of dialysis dose and membrane flux on hemoglobin cycling in hemodialysis patients

Many studies found that hemoglobin (Hb) fluctuation was closely related to the prognosis of the maintenance hemodialysis patients. We investigated the association of factors relating dialysis dose and dialyzer membrane with Hb levels. We undertook a randomized clinical trial in 140 patients undergoing thrice-weekly dialysis and assigned patients randomly to a standard or high dose of dialysis; Hb level was measured every month for 12 months. In the standard-dose group, the mean (±SD) urea reduction ratio was 65.1% ± 7.3%, the single-pool Kt/V was 1.26 ± 0.11, and the equilibrated Kt/V was 1.05 ± 0.09; in the high-dose group, the values were 73.5% ± 8.7%, 1.68 ± 0.15, and 1.47 ± 0.11, respectively. The standard deviation (SD) and residual SD (liner regression of Hb) values of Hb were significantly higher in the standard-dose group and low-flux group. The percentage achievement of target Hb in the high-dose dialysis group and high-flux dialyzer group was significantly higher than the standard-dose group and low-flux group, respectively. Patients undergoing hemodialysis thrice weekly appear to have benefit from a higher dialysis dose than that recommended by current KDQQI (Kidney Disease Qutcome Quality Initiative) guidelines or from the use of a high-flux membrane, which is in favor of maintaining stable Hb levels.

What can we learn from the U.S. expanded end-stage renal disease bundle?

Episode-based payment, commonly referred to as bundled payment, has emerged as a key component of U.S. health care payment reform. Bundled payments are appealing as they share the financial risk of treating patients between payers and providers, encouraging the delivery of cost-effective care. A closely watched example is the U.S. End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Prospective Payment System, known as the 'expanded ESRD bundle.' In this paper we consider the expanded ESRD bundle 2 years after its implementation. First, we discuss emerging lessons, including how implementation has changed dialysis care with respect to the use of erythropoietin stimulating agents, how implementation has led to an increase in the use of home-based peritoneal dialysis, and how it may have contributed to the market consolidation of dialysis providers. Second, we use the expanded ESRD bundle to illustrate the importance of accounting for stakeholder input and staging policy implementation. Third, we highlight the need to consider system-wide consequences of implementing bundled payment policies. Fourth, we suggest how bundled payments may create research opportunities. Bundled payment policies offer opportunities and challenges. Their success will be determined not only by impacts on cost containment, but also to the extent they encourage high quality care.

Meeting the 2012 QIP (Quality Incentive Program) clinical measures: strategies for dialysis centers

The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services end-stage renal disease Quality Incentive Program (QIP) is a pay-for-performance program that reduces dialysis center payments by up to 2% for suboptimal patient care. In January 2012, the performance year began for payment year 2014, bringing significant changes to the QIP by introducing 6 quality indicators (3 clinical measures and 3 reporting measures) and a new scoring methodology. To succeed under the new QIP, dialysis facilities must meet 3 clinical measures that assess anemia management, hemodialysis adequacy, and vascular access type in patients receiving dialysis treatment, as well as 3 reporting measures that involve the reporting of dialysis safety events, attestation of administering a patient satisfaction survey, and attestation of patient mineral metabolism monitoring. To help dialysis providers reach these targets, this article provides an overview of the 3 clinical measures and the QIP scoring methodology, as well as a description of patient claims that are excluded when the scores for these measures are calculated. Strategies and solutions that address provider- and patient-related factors also are discussed to help ensure that more dialysis centers meet the new QIP clinical measures for performance year 2012/payment year 2014.

Dialysis practices that distinguish top- versus bottom-performing facilities by hemoglobin outcomes

BACKGROUND

Because there is wide variation in outcomes across dialysis facilities, it is possible that top-performing units use practices not shared by others. The Identifying Best Practices in Dialysis (IBPiD) Study seeks to identify practices that distinguish top- from bottom-performing facilities by key outcomes, including achievement of recommended hemoglobin targets.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study with cross-sectional study ascertainment of predictors and outcomes.

PREDICTORS

Facility dialysis practices ascertained using practice surveys of dialysis staff who indicated their level of agreement that each practice occurs in their facility (1-6 on a Likert scale).

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

423 personnel in 90 dialysis facilities from 1 for-profit and 2 not-for-profit dialysis organizations.

OUTCOMES

Percentage of patients per month per facility with hemoglobin levels of 11-12 g/dL. We divided facilities by median into top- versus bottom-performing groups and compared mean scores for each practice using t tests. We report practices that were statistically significant and achieved at least a medium effect size (ES) >or=0.4.

RESULTS

17 of 155 tested predictors were significant. Achievement of hemoglobin level targets was related most strongly to the use of chairside computers (ES, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4-1.4]), extent/quality of educational videos (ES, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.2-1.1]), frequency of calling per diem staff if short staffed (ES, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.21-1.1]), policy that nurses pass written competency examinations before hire (ES, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.2-1.0]), and technician cannulation mastery (ES, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.2-1.1]).

LIMITATIONS

This is a cross-sectional study that can address only associations, not causations. Future research should measure the longitudinal predictive value of these practices.

CONCLUSIONS

High-performing facilities report more effective education programs, better staff management, higher staff competency, and higher use of chairside computers, a potential marker of information technology proficiency. This suggests that hemoglobin level management is enhanced by processes reflecting a coordinated multidisciplinary environment.

Computerized decision support for EPO dosing in hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Anemia management in hemodialysis patients poses significant challenges. The present study explored the hypothesis that computerized dosing of intravenous erythropoietin (EPO) would increase the percentage of hemoglobin (Hb) values within the target range and reduce staff time spent on anemia management.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

In-center hemodialysis patients who received EPO at Dialysis Clinic Inc dialysis units for at least 3 months between October 1, 2005, and April 30, 2006.

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Computerized decision support (CDS) for EPO dosing is compared with manual physician-directed dosing.

OUTCOMES

Achieved monthly Hb values, quantity of EPO administered, and time spent by dialysis unit personnel.

MEASUREMENTS

Monthly Hb and quantity of EPO administered to 1,118 patients from 18 dialysis units treated using CDS and 7,823 patients from 125 dialysis units treated using manual dosing.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the likelihood of a monthly Hb level of 11-12 or 10-12 g/dL using CDS compared with manual dosing. The likelihood of an Hb level > 12 g/dL decreased and the likelihood of an Hb level < 10 g/dL increased using CDS. EPO use was 4% lower using CDS, although the difference was not statistically significant. CDS was associated with a nearly 50% decrease (P < 0.001) in the time spent by dialysis unit staff on anemia management.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective and nonrandomized.

CONCLUSION

The number of monthly Hb values in an 11- (and 10-) to 12-g/dL target range and EPO use did not differ with EPO dosing using CDS compared with manual dosing. Staff resources devoted to anemia management decreased significantly using CDS.