Nephrology training in Australia and New Zealand: A survey of outcomes and adequacy

Integrated home dialysis model: facilitating home-to-home transition

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) are the two home dialysis modalities offered to patients. They promote patient autonomy, enhance independence, and are generally associated with better quality of life compared to facility hemodialysis. PD offers some advantages (enhanced flexibility, ability to travel, preservation of residual kidney function, and vascular access sites) but few patients remain on PD indefinitely due to peritonitis and other complications. By contrast, HHD incurs longer and more intensive training combined with increased upfront health costs compared to PD, but is easier to sustain in the long term. As a result, the integrated home dialysis model was proposed to combine the advantages of both home-based dialysis modalities. In this paradigm, patients are encouraged to initiate dialysis on PD and transfer to HHD after PD termination. Available evidence demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this approach and some observational studies have shown that patients who undergo the PD-to-HHD transition have clinical outcomes comparable to patients who initiate dialysis directly on HHD. Nevertheless, the prevalence of PD-to-HHD transfers remains low, reflecting the multiple barriers that prevent the full uptake of home-to-home transitions, notably a lack of awareness about the model, home-care "burnout," clinical inertia after a transfer to facility HD, suboptimal integration of PD and HHD centers, and insufficient funding for home dialysis programs. In this review, we will examine the conceptual advantages and disadvantages of integrated home dialysis, present the evidence that underlies it, identify challenges that prevent its success and finally, propose solutions to increase its adoption.

Results of the European EDITH nephrologist survey on factors influencing treatment modality choice for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Access to forms of dialysis, kidney transplantation (Tx) and comprehensive conservative management (CCM) for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) varies across European countries. Attitudes of nephrologists, information provision and decision-making may influence this access and nephrologists may experience several barriers when providing treatments for ESKD.

METHODS

We surveyed European nephrologists and kidney transplant surgeons treating adults with ESKD about factors influencing modality choice. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the opinions of professionals from European countries with low-, middle- and high-gross domestic product purchasing power parity (GDP PPP).

RESULTS

In total, 681 professionals from 33 European countries participated. Respondents from all GDP categories indicated that ∼10% of patients received no information before the start of renal replacement therapy (RRT) (P = 0.106). Early information provision and more involvement of patients in decision-making were more frequently reported in middle- and high-GDP countries (P < 0.05). Professionals' attitudes towards several treatments became more positive with increasing GDP (P < 0.05). Uptake of in-centre haemodialysis was sufficient to 73% of respondents, but many wanted increased uptake of home dialysis, Tx and CCM. Respondents experienced different barriers according to availability of specific treatments in their centre. The occurrence of barriers (financial, staff shortage, lack of space/supplies and patient related) decreased with increasing GDP (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in factors influencing modality choice when providing RRT or CCM to adults with ESKD were found among low-, middle- and high-GDP countries in Europe. Therefore a unique pan-European policy to improve access to treatments may be inefficient. Different policies for clusters of countries could be more useful.

A Survey Study of Trends in Adult Nephrology Advanced Training in Australia and New Zealand

BACKGROUND

There has been considerable growth in nephrology advanced trainee numbers in Australia and New Zealand, with uncertain effects on clinical experience, competence and employment outcomes.

AIM

To review the perceived adequacy and temporal trends of advanced training in nephrology in Australia and New Zealand by evaluating training experiences, personal views on important aspects of training and nephrology, career paths and early employment outcomes.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to members of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nephrology via email in December 2020. Responses were sought from current trainees and from nephrologists qualifying since 2014. Likert scale proportions were calculated and group comparisons made using the Chi-square test.

RESULTS

A total of 88 participants returned the survey yielding a response rate of 32%, with a representative sample of trainees and consultants from across Australia and New Zealand. Training was reported as adequate in most aspects of clinical nephrology, although 88% of respondents felt poorly prepared for entering private practice and 61% reported inadequate training in kidney histopathology. Exposure to clinical procedures was variable, with adequate training in percutaneous kidney biopsy but mostly inadequate training in dialysis access insertion. Sixty-nine percent of nephrologists completed their advanced training entirely in large urban centres and 85% worked in an urban area after training. Only 23% of consultants were engaged in full-time clinical employment in their first year post-training and 78% were undertaking at least one of dual specialty training or a higher degree by research. Demand for subspecialty fellowships was high.

CONCLUSION

Trainees and nephrologists in Australia and New Zealand are currently satisfied with their training in most aspects of nephrology, however some clinical experiences are perceived as inadequate and early career paths after advanced training are increasingly diverse. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Non-medical barriers reported by nephrologists when providing renal replacement therapy or comprehensive conservative management to end-stage kidney disease patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Large international differences exist in access to renal replacement therapy (RRT) modalities and comprehensive conservative management (CCM) for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), suggesting that some patients are not receiving the most appropriate treatment. Previous studies mainly focused on barriers reported by patients or medical barriers (e.g. comorbidities) reported by nephrologists. An overview of the non-medical barriers reported by nephrologists when providing the most appropriate form of RRT (other than conventional in-centre haemodialysis) or CCM is lacking.

METHODS

We searched in EMBASE and PubMed for original articles with a cross-sectional design (surveys, interviews or focus groups) published between January 2010 and September 2018. We included studies in which nephrologists reported barriers when providing RRT or CCM to adult patients with ESKD. We used the barriers and facilitators survey by Peters et al. [Ruimte Voor Verandering? Knelpunten en Mogelijkheden Voor Verbeteringen in de Patiëntenzorg. Nijmegen: Afdeling Kwaliteit van zorg (WOK), 2003] as preliminary framework to create our own model and performed meta-ethnographic analysis of non-medical barriers in text, tables and figures.

RESULTS

Of the 5973 articles screened, 16 articles were included using surveys (n = 10), interviews (n = 5) and focus groups (n = 1). We categorized the barriers into three levels: patient level (e.g. attitude, role perception, motivation, knowledge and socio-cultural background), level of the healthcare professional (e.g. fears and concerns, working style, communication skills) and level of the healthcare system (e.g. financial barriers, supportive staff and practice organization).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review has identified a number of modifiable, non-medical barriers that could be targeted by, for example, education and optimizing financing structure to improve access to RRT modalities and CCM.

Nocturnal Hemodialysis: Why Aren't More People Doing It?

Nocturnal hemodialysis is a form of intensive hemodialysis, which may be done in center or at home. Despite the documented clinical and economic benefits of ncturnal hemodialysis, uptake of this modality has been relatively low. In this review, we aim to address the potential barriers and possible mitigation strategies. Among the patient-related barriers, lack of knowledge and awareness remains the most common barrier, while administrative inertia to change from conventional in-center hemodialysis continues to be a challenge. Current global effort to grow home dialysis will re-focus the need for better patient education, innovate home dialysis technology, and evolve new models of care. New patient-focused policy will allow changes in reimbursement and develop appropriate momentum toward an integrated "home first model" to kidney replacement therapy.

The use of virtual physician mentoring to enhance home dialysis knowledge and uptake

Home dialysis therapies are flexible kidney replacement strategies with documented clinical benefits. While the incidence of end-stage kidney disease continues to increase globally, the use of home dialysis remains low in most developed countries. Multiple barriers to providing home dialysis have been noted in the published literature. Among known challenges, gaps in clinician knowledge are potentially addressable with a focused education strategy. Recent national surveys in the United States and Australia have highlighted the need for enhanced home dialysis knowledge especially among nephrologists who have recently completed training. Traditional in-person continuing professional educational programmes have had modest success in promoting home dialysis and are limited by scale and the present global COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesize that the use of a 'Hub and Spoke' model of virtual home dialysis mentorship for nephrologists based on project ECHO would support home dialysis growth. We review the home dialysis literature, known educational gaps and plausible educational interventions to address current limitations in physician education.

Education in Nephrology Fellowship: A Survey-Based Needs Assessment

Educational needs assessments for nephrology fellowship training are limited. This study assessed fellows' perceptions of current educational needs and interest in novel modalities that may improve their educational experience and quantified educational resources used by programs and fellows. We distributed a seven-question electronic survey to all United States-based fellows receiving complimentary American Society of Nephrology (ASN) membership at the end of the 2015-2016 academic year in conjunction with the ASN Nephrology Fellows Survey. One third (320 of 863; 37%) of fellows in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited positions responded. Most respondents rated overall quality of teaching in fellowship as either "good" (37%) or "excellent" (44%), and most (55%) second-year fellows felt "fully prepared" for independent practice. Common educational resources used by fellows included UpToDate, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology/Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and Nephrology Self-Assessment Program; others-including ASN's online curricula-were used less often. Fellows indicated interest in additional instruction in several core topics, including home dialysis modalities, ultrasonography, and pathology. Respondents strongly supported interventions to improve pathology instruction and increase time for physiology and clinical review. In conclusion, current nephrology fellows perceive several gaps in training. Innovation in education and training is needed to better prepare future nephrologists for the growing challenges of kidney care.

Conservative Management and End-of-Life Care in an Australian Cohort with ESRD

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the proportion of patients who switched to dialysis after confirmed plans for conservative care and compare survival and end-of-life care among patients choosing conservative care with those initiating RRT.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A cohort study of 721 patients on incident dialysis, patients receiving transplants, and conservatively managed patients from 66 Australian renal units entered into the Patient Information about Options for Treatment Study from July 1 to September 30, 2009 were followed for 3 years. A two-sided binomial test assessed the proportion of patients who switched from conservative care to RRT. Cox regression, stratified by center and adjusted for patient and treatment characteristics, estimated factors associated with 3-year survival.

RESULTS

In total, 102 of 721 patients planned for conservative care, and median age was 80 years old. Of these, 8% (95% confidence interval, 3% to 13%), switched to dialysis, predominantly for symptom management. Of 94 patients remaining on a conservative pathway, 18% were alive at 3 years. Of the total 721 patients, 247 (34%) died by study end. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with all-cause mortality included older age (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.36 to 1.77), baseline serum albumin <3.0 versus 3.7-5.4 g/dl (hazard ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.72 to 6.81), and management with conservative care compared with RRT (hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.39 to 3.40). Of 247 deaths, patients managed with RRT were less likely to receive specialist palliative care (26% versus 57%; P<0.001), more likely to die in the hospital (66% versus 42%; P<0.001) than home or hospice, and more likely to receive palliative care only within the last week of life (42% versus 15%; P<0.001) than those managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival after 3 years of conservative management is common, with relatively few patients switching to dialysis. Specialist palliative care services are used more frequently and at an earlier time point for conservatively managed patients, a practice associated with better symptom management and quality of life.