Shared decision-making in dialysis choice has potential to improve self-management in people with kidney disease: A qualitative follow-up study

Shared decision making for patients with kidney failure to improve end-of-life care: Development of the DESIRE intervention

AIM

To describe the development of a shared decision making intervention for planning end-of-life care for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals in kidney services.

BACKGROUND

End-of-life care conversations within standard disease management consultations are challenging for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. End-of-life care planning is about making difficult decisions in advance, which is why health professionals need shared decision making skills to be able to initiate end-of-life conversations. Health professionals report needing more skills to raise the issue of end-of-life care options within consultations and patients want to be able to discuss issues important to them about future care plans.

METHODS

The development design was guided by the UK Medical Research Council's framework and a user-centred approach was applied. Four workshops were conducted with end users. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication for Population Health and Policy interventions was used to shape which questions needed to be answered through the workshops and to present the intervention. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) criteria set the standards to be achieved.

RESULTS

Areas considered significant to a shared decision making intervention were training of health professionals, conversations about end-of-life care, planning and evaluation of the decisions, reporting decisions in health records and repetition of consultation. The development process went through 14 iterations.

CONCLUSION

An intervention named DESIRE was developed that comprises: (1) a training programme for health professionals; (2) shared decision making conversations; and (3) a patient decision aid. The intervention met 30 out of 33 IPDAS criteria.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

DESIRE is intended to support shared decision making about planning end-of-life care among patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. The study provides important tools for the stakeholders engaged that can be used within different models of care.

IMPACT

What problem did the study address? International guidelines recommend health professionals involve patients with kidney failure in making decisions about end-of-life care, but there is variation in how this is implemented within and across kidney services. Furthermore, patients, relatives and health professionals find it challenging to initiate conversations about end-of-life care. What were the main findings? The study resulted in the development of a complex intervention, called DESIRE, about shared decision making and planning end-of-life care for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals in kidney services, including a training programme for health professionals, shared decision making conversations and a patient decision aid. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? The research contributes a shared decision making intervention to patients in the later stage of kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. We believe that the DESIRE intervention could be introduced during consultations with health professionals at an earlier stage of the patient's illness trajectory, as well as being applied to other chronic diseases.

REPORTING METHOD

This intervention development research is reported according to the GUIDance for the rEporting of intervention Development (GUIDED) checklist and the DEVELOPTOOLS Reporting Checklist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients, relatives and health professionals have been involved throughout the research process as part of the research team and advisory board. For this study, the advisory board has particularly contributed to the development process of the DESIRE intervention by actively participating in the four workshops, in the iterations between the workshops and in the preparation of the manuscript.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure

Background

Kidney services vary in the way they involve people with kidney failure (PwKF) in treatment decisions as management needs change. We discuss how decision-science applications support proactively PwKF to make informed decisions between treatment options with kidney professionals.

Methods

A conceptual review of findings about decision making and use of decision aids in kidney services, synthesized with reference to: the Making Informed Decisions-Individually and Together (MIND-IT) multiple stakeholder decision makers framework; and the Medical Research Council-Complex Intervention Development and Evaluation research framework.

Results

This schema represents the different types of decision aids that support PwKF and professional reasoning as they manage kidney disease individually and together; adjustments at micro, meso and macro levels supports integration in practice.

Conclusion

Innovating services to meet clinical guidelines on enhancing shared decision making processes means enabling all stakeholders to use decision aids to meet their goals within kidney pathways at individual, service and organizational levels.

The experience of shared decision-making for patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing haemodialysis and their families-A scoping review

AIM

To identify the experiences of shared decision-making (SDM) for adults with end-stage kidney disease undergoing haemodialysis (HD) and their family members.

DESIGN

A scoping literature review.

METHOD

A scoping literature review, using Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

Medline (OVID), EMBASE, CINAHL, Psych Info, ProQuest, Web of Science, Open grey and grey literature were searched covering years from January 2015 to July 2022. Empirical studies, unpublished thesis and studies in English were included. The scoping review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta analysis-scoping review extension (PRISMA-Scr).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the final review. While SDM is welcomed by people undergoing HD, their experience is often limited to treatment decisions, with little opportunity to revisit decisions previously made. The role of the family/caregivers as active participants in SDM requires recognition.

CONCLUSION

People with end-stage kidney disease undergoing HD do and want to participate in the process of SDM, on a wide range of topics, in addition to treatment. A strategy is needed to ensure that SDM interventions are successful in achieving patient-driven outcomes and enhancing their quality of life.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review highlights the experiences of people undergoing HD and their family/caregivers. There is a wide variety of clinical decisions requiring consideration for people undergoing HD, including considering the importance who should be involved in the decision-making processes and when decisions should occur. Further study to ensure nurses understand the importance, and influence of including family members in conversations on both SDM processes and outcomes is needed. There is a need for research from both patient and healthcare professional (HCP) perspectives to ensure that people feel supported and have their needs met in the SDM process.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Development and preliminary usability testing of an electronic conversation guide incorporating patient values and prognostic information in preparation for older people's decision-making near the end of life

Initiating end-of-life conversations can be daunting for clinicians and overwhelming for patients and families. This leads to delays in communicating prognosis and preparing for the inevitable in old age, often generating potentially harmful overtreatment and poor-quality deaths. We aimed to develop an electronic resource, called Communicating Health Alternatives Tool (CHAT) that was compatible with hospital medical records software to facilitate preparation for shared decision-making across health settings with older adults deemed to be in the last year of life. The project used mixed methods including: literature review, user-directed specifications, web-based interface development with authentication and authorization; clinician and consumer co-design, iterative consultation for user testing; and ongoing developer integration of user feedback. An internet-based conversation guide to facilitate clinician-led advance care planning was co-developed covering screening for short-term risk of death, patient values and preferences, and treatment choices for chronic kidney disease and dementia. Printed summary of such discussion could be used to begin the process in hospital or community health services. Clinicians, patients, and caregivers agreed with its ease of use and were generally accepting of its contents and format. CHAT is available to health services for implementation in effectiveness trials to determine whether the interaction and documentation leads to formal decision-making, goal-concordant care, and subsequent reduction of unwanted treatments at the end of life.

Use of the Self- and Family Management Framework in quantitative studies

BACKGROUND

The Self- and Family Management Framework (SFMF) identifies factors and outcomes of patient and family management of chronic illness. In a previous citation analysis, we reported the frequency and nature of use of the SFMF.

PURPOSE

We conducted a sub-analysis of quantitative articles in the citation analysis to examine testing of relationships depicted in the SFMF.

METHODS

We analyzed study purposes, independent and dependent variables, study implications, and text that referred to the SFMF in 40 articles.

FINDINGS

The SFMF has been used largely to explore factors affecting SFM behaviors, focusing on patient versus family self-management. Independent variables included all categories of facilitators/barriers specified in the SFMF. Dependent variables included all SFMF components (Facilitators/Barriers, Processes, Proximal and Distal Outcomes). Racial/ethnic diversity was limited among study participants. Study implications pertained mostly to psychosocial outcomes. Most studies referred to the SFMF generally.

DISCUSSION

Findings will contribute to revision of the SFMF.

Shared decision-making in advanced kidney disease: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive overview of interventions that support shared decision-making (SDM) for treatment modality decisions in advanced kidney disease (AKD). To provide summarised information on their content, use and reported results. To provide an overview of interventions currently under development or investigation.

DESIGN

The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was followed. This review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO, PROSPERO and Academic Search Premier for peer-reviewed literature. Other online databases (eg, clinicaltrials.gov, OpenGrey) for grey literature.

ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION

Records in English with a study population of patients >18 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Records had to be on the subject of SDM, or explicitly mention that the intervention reported on could be used to support SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently screened and selected records for data extraction. Interventions were categorised as prognostic tools (PTs), educational programmes (EPs), patient decision aids (PtDAs) or multicomponent initiatives (MIs). Interventions were subsequently categorised based on the decisions they were developed to support.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five interventions were identified in a total of 158 included records: 52 PTs, 51 EPs, 29 PtDAs and 13 MIs. Sixteen (n=16, 11%) were novel interventions currently under investigation. Forty-six (n=46, 35.7%) were reported to have been implemented in clinical practice. Sixty-seven (n=67, 51.9%) were evaluated for their effects on outcomes in the intended users.

CONCLUSION

There is no conclusive evidence on which intervention is the most efficacious in supporting SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD. There is a lot of variation in selected outcomes, and the body of evidence is largely based on observational research. In addition, the effects of these interventions on SDM are under-reported.

Supporting Shared Decision-Making and Home Dialysis in End-Stage Kidney Disease

It has been widely demonstrated that patient education and empowerment, especially involving shared treatment decisions, improve patient outcomes in chronic medical conditions, including chronic kidney disease requiring kidney replacement therapies. Accordingly, regulatory agencies in the US and worldwide recommend shared decision-making for finalizing one's choice of kidney replacement therapy. It is also recognized that the US needs to substantially increase home dialysis utilization to leverage its positive impacts on patient and healthcare cost-related outcomes. This perspective highlights how the routine clinical use of the recommended practice of shared decision-making can exist in synergy with the system's goal for increased home dialysis use. It introduces a pragmatic provider checklist, The Nephrologist's Shared Decision-Making Checklist, grounded in the relevant theories of shared decision-making, and, unlike some research assessments and extant tools, is easy to understand and implement in clinical practice. This qualitative Checklist can help providers ensure that they have co-constructed an SDM experience with the patient and involved caretakers, helping them benefit from the improved outcomes associated with SDM.

Disparities in dialysis modality decision-making using a social-ecological lens: a qualitative approach

BACKGROUND

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) may choose to undergo dialysis in-center or at home, but uptake of home dialysis in the US has been minimal despite its benefits over in-center dialysis. Factors that may have led patients to select home dialysis over in-center dialysis are poorly understood in the literature, and interventions to improve selection of home dialysis have focused on patient knowledge and shared decision-making processes between patients and providers. The purpose of this study was to explore micro- and macro-level factors surrounding dialysis modality decision-making among patients undergoing in-center and home dialysis, and explore what leads patients to select home dialysis over in-center dialysis.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in a dialysis clinic at a large Midwestern research hospital, from September 2019 to December 2020. Participants were 18 years or older, undergoing dialysis for ESKD, and had the cognitive ability to provide consent. Surveys assessing demographic and clinical information were administered to participants following their interviews.

RESULTS

Forty patients completed interviews and surveys (20 [50%] in-center dialysis, 17 [43%] female, mean [SD] age, 59 [15.99] years). Qualitative findings suggested that healthcare access and engagement before entering nephrology care, after entering nephrology care, and following dialysis initiation influenced patients' awareness regarding their kidney disease status, progression toward ESKD, and dialysis options. Potential modifiers of these outcomes include race, ethnicity, and language barriers. Most participants adopted a passive-approach during decision-making. Finally, fatigue, concerns regarding one's dialyzing schedule, and problems with fistula/catheter access sites contributed to overall satisfaction with one's dialysis modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings point to broader factors affecting dialysis selection, including healthcare access and racial/ethnic inequities. Providing dialysis information before entering nephrology and after dialysis initiation may improve patient agency in decision-making. Additional resources should be prioritized for patients of underrepresented backgrounds. Dialysis decision-making may be appropriately modeled under the social-ecological framework to inform future interventions.

Interventions, Participative Role, Barriers, and Facilitators for Involvement in eHealth Communication for People Undergoing Hemodialysis: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Background

eHealth interventions have been shown to offer people living with chronic kidney disease the opportunity of embracing dialysis therapies with greater confidence, the potential to obtain better clinical outcomes and increased quality of life, and diverse and flexible designs and delivery options. eHealth interventions or solutions can offer one-way information without the possibility for dialogue, as with most mobile apps. eHealth interventions intending to enable two-way communication between patients undergoing hemodialysis and health professionals are the focus of this review. eHealth communication interventions that enable two-way communication between patients undergoing hemodialysis and health professionals is an emerging field, but issues relating to participation in eHealth communication for patients undergoing hemodialysis are scarcely described. The current conceptualization of this issue is too scattered to inform the development of future interventions. In this scoping review, we want to assemble and examine this scattered knowledge on participation in two-way eHealth communication for patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Objective

We want to understand the participative role of people living with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis in available communicative eHealth interventions and to understand which barriers and facilitators exist for patient involvement in eHealth communication with health professionals.

Methods

A scoping review methodology is guiding this study. Peer-reviewed primary studies, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods study designs will be included. A systematic search for published studies, dissertations, and theses at the doctoral level in the English language will be conducted in five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses). The included literature will focus on adult (18 years or older) patients undergoing hemodialysis who are involved in eHealth communication with health professionals. Data on the type of eHealth communication interventions, the participative role, and barriers and facilitators for the involvement in eHealth communication for people undergoing hemodialysis will be extracted independently by two reviewers. The extracted data will be collected in a draft charting table prepared for the study. Any discrepancies between the reviewers will be solved through discussion or with a third reviewer.

Results

Results are anticipated by the spring of 2023 and will be presented in tabular format along with a narrative summary. The anticipated results will be presented in alignment with the objectives of the study, presenting findings on the participative role of patients undergoing hemodialysis in eHealth communication interventions.

Conclusions

We anticipate that this study will inform on eHealth communication interventions and the level of patient participation in eHealth communication for patients undergoing hemodialysis. The systematized overview will possibly identify research gaps and motivate further development of eHealth communication to ensure patient participation. The findings will be of interest to key stakeholders in clinical care, research, development, policy, and patient advocacy.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/38615

Factors promoting shared decision-making in renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease: systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

PURPOSE

Shared decision-making (SDM) about the type of renal replacement therapy to use is a matter of great importance involving patients, their families, and health treatment teams. This review aims to synthesize the volume of qualitative work explaining the factors influencing SDM regarding renal replacement therapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis approach recommended by JBI was used, six databases were searched. Studies were qualitative or mixed research published since 2000, with a primary focus on patient experiences, perceptions and practices regarding which method to choose for renal replacement therapy in End-Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD) patients. All themes were analyzed and compared to the established connectedness.

RESULTS

A total of 1313 patients were enrolled in 32 studies focusing on factors associated with SDM regarding renal replacement therapy were included. All quality evaluations of the literature were medium to high. Four common themes were identified in our synthesis: (1) patient personal reasons, (2) family-related factors, (3) health care professional-related factors, and (4) social factors influence.

CONCLUSION

The model proposes pathways that could be explored further in future qualitative and quantitative studies and suggests that patients' beliefs, emotions, and awareness should be targeted alongside patients' decision-making practices to increase the efficacy of interventions. The majority of studies included in this review focus on older patients, and all report patients' perspectives. Further research is required to understand the family member perspectives on SMD of renal replacement therapy.

Comparison of shared decision making in patients undergoing hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis for choosing a dialysis modality

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) is recognized as the gold standard for patient-centered care. This study aimed to assess and compare the SDM among patients undergoing hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis for choosing a dialysis modality.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study that was performed on 300 dialysis patients (218 HD and 82 PD) referred to two Dialysis Centers. Data were collected using demographic information and a 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). The data were analyzed using ANOVA and independent t-test by SPSS software.

Results

The mean SDM-Q-9 score in all samples (PD and HD) was 21.94 ± 15.08 (in a possible range of 0 to 45). Results of the independent t-test showed that the mean SDM-Q-9 score in PD patients (33.11 ± 10.08) was higher than HD patients (17.14 ± 74.24) (p < 0.001). The results showed a statistically significant difference in mean SDM-Q-9 score based on patients’ age, educational level, and income (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Implementing shared decision making and providing information on RRT should be started in the early stage of CKD. The health care providers should involve patients with CKD and their families in dialysis-related decisions and it should be started in the early stage of CKD.