Identifying Major Barriers to Home Dialysis (The IM-HOME Study): Findings From a National Survey of Patients, Care Partners, and Providers

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Developing strategies to improve home dialysis use requires a comprehensive understanding of barriers. We sought to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis use from the perspective of patients, care partners, and providers.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a convergent parallel mixed-methods study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

We convened a seven-member advisory board of patients, care partners, and providers who collectively developed lists of major patient/care partner-perceived barriers and provider-perceived barriers to home dialysis. We used these lists to develop a survey that was distributed to patients, care partners, and providers-through the American Association of Kidney Patients and the National Kidney Foundation. The surveys asked participants to: 1) rank their top three major barriers (quantitative); and 2) describe barriers to home dialysis (qualitative).

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

We compiled a list of the top three patient/care partner-perceived and top three provider-perceived barriers (quantitative) and conducted a directed content analysis of open-ended survey responses (qualitative).

RESULTS

There were 522 complete responses (233 providers; 289 patients/care partners). The top three patient/care partner-perceived barriers were: fear of performing home dialysis; lack of space; and the need for home-based support. The top three provider-perceived barriers were: poor patient education; limited mechanisms for home-based support staff, mental health, and education; and lack of experienced staff. We identified nine themes through qualitative analysis: limited education; financial disincentives; limited resources; high burden of care; built environment/structure of care delivery that favor in-center hemodialysis; fear and isolation; perceptions of inequities in access to home dialysis; provider perspectives about patients; and patient/provider resiliency.

LIMITATIONS

This was an online survey that is subject to non-response bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The top three barriers to home dialysis for patient/care partners and providers incompletely overlap, suggesting the need for diverse strategies that simultaneously address patient-perceived barriers at home and provider-perceived barriers in the clinic.

Multifaceted Intervention to Increase the Use of Home Dialysis: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Home dialysis therapies (peritoneal and home hemodialysis) are less expensive and provide similar outcomes to in-center hemodialysis, but they are underutilized in most health systems. Given this, we designed a multifaceted intervention to increase the use of home dialysis. In this study, our objective was to evaluate the effect of this intervention on home dialysis use in CKD clinics across Canada.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in 55 CKD clinic clusters in nine provinces in Canada between October 2014 and November 2015. Participants included all adult patients who initiated dialysis in the year following the intervention. We evaluated the implementation of a four-component intervention, which included phone surveys from a knowledge translation broker, a 1-year center-specific audit/feedback on home dialysis use, delivery of an educational package (including tools aimed at both providers and patients), and an academic detailing visit. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients using home dialysis at 180 days after dialysis initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 55 clinics were randomized (27 in the intervention and 28 in the control), with 5312 patients initiating dialysis in the 1-year follow-up period. In the primary analysis, there was no difference in the use of home dialysis at 180 days in the intervention and control clusters (absolute risk difference, 4%; 95% confidence interval, -2% to 10%). Using a difference-in-difference comparison, the use of home dialysis at 180 days was similar before and after implementation of the intervention (difference of 0% in intervention clinics; 95% confidence interval, -2% to 3%; difference of 0.8% in control clinics; 95% confidence interval, -1% to 3%; P=0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted intervention did not increase the use of home dialysis in adults initiating dialysis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

A Cluster Randomized Trial to Assess the Impact of Patient and Provider Education on Use of Home Dialysis, NCT02202018.

Cost of the quanta SC+ hemodialysis system for self-care in the United Kingdom

Introduction

New personal hemodialysis systems, such as the quanta SC+, are being developed; these systems are smaller and simpler to use while providing the clearances of conventional systems. Increasing the uptake of lower‐intensity assistance and full self‐care dialysis may provide economic benefits to the public health payer. In the United Kingdom, most hemodialysis patients currently receive facility‐based dialysis costing more than £36,350 per year including patient transport. As such, we aimed to describe the annual costs of using the SC+ hemodialysis system in the United Kingdom for 3×‐weekly and 3.5×‐weekly dialysis regimens, for self‐care hemodialysis provided both in‐center and at home.

Methods

We applied a cost minimization approach. Costs for human resources, equipment, and consumables were sourced from the dialysis machine developer (Quanta Dialysis Technologies) based upon discussions with dialysis providers. Facility overhead expenses and transport costs were taken from a review of the literature.

Findings

Annual costs associated with the use of the SC+ hemodialysis system were estimated to be £26,642 for hemodialysis provided 3× weekly as home self‐care; £30,235 for hemodialysis provided 3× weekly as self‐care in‐center; £29,866 for hemodialysis provided 3.5× weekly as home self‐care; and £36,185 for hemodialysis provided 3.5× weekly as self‐care in‐center.

Discussion

We found that the SC+ hemodialysis system offers improved cost‐effectiveness for both 3×‐weekly and 3.5×‐weekly self‐care dialysis performed at home or as self‐care in‐center versus fully assisted dialysis provided 3× weekly with conventional machines in facilities.

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.

Exploring stakeholders and their requirements in the process of home hemodialysis: A literature review

Providing home hemodialysis (HHD) therapy is a complex process that not only requires the use of a complex technology but also involves a diverse group of stakeholders, and each stakeholder has their requirements and may not share a common interest. Bringing them together will require the alignment of their interests. A process management perspective can help to accomplish the alignment of their interests. To align their interests, it is crucial to identify interest groups and understand their interests. The main objective of this paper is to identify the stakeholders and represents their interests as a list of requirements in the HHD process. An extensive literature review has been carried out and PubMed was used for literature extraction. In total, 1848 articles were retrieved of which 80 have fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A large array of actors is identified and their interests/requirements at different stages of the HHD process are represented in the form of a list. They have both common and conflicting requirements in the HHD process. If these requirements are aligned and balanced, a stakeholder's driven treatment process will be developed and a real improvement will be achieved in the treatment process.

Development and Content Validity of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Home Dialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The population of patients with kidney failure in the United States using home dialysis modalities is growing rapidly. Unlike for in-center hemodialysis, there is no patient-reported experience measure for assessment of patient experience of care for peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis. We sought to develop and establish content validity of a patient-reported experience measure for patients undergoing home dialysis using a mixed methods multiple stakeholder approach.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a structured literature review, followed by concept elicitation focus groups and interviews among 65 participants, including 21 patients on home dialysis, 33 home dialysis nurses, three patient care partners, and eight nephrologists. We generated a list of candidate items for possible measure inclusion and conducted a national prioritization exercise among 91 patients on home dialysis and 39 providers using a web-based platform. We drafted the Home Dialysis Care Experience instrument and conducted cognitive debriefing interviews to evaluate item interpretability, order, and structure. We iteratively refined the measure on the basis of interview findings.

RESULTS

The literature review and concept elicitation phases supported 15 domains of home dialysis care experience in six areas: communication and education of patients, concern and helpfulness of the care team, proficiency of the care team, patient-centered care, care coordination, and amenities and environment. Focus groups results showed that domains of highest importance for measure inclusion were patient education and communication, care coordination, and personalization of care. Prioritization exercise results confirmed focus group findings. Cognitive debriefing indicated that the final measure was easily understood and supported content validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The Home Dialysis Care Experience instrument is a 26-item patient-reported experience measure for use in peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis. The Home Dialysis Care Experience instrument represents the first rigorously developed and content-valid English-language instrument for assessment of patient-reported experience of care in home dialysis.

Facilitators and Barriers to Care in Rural Emergency Departments in Alberta for Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis (PD): An Interpretive Descriptive Study

Background:

Home dialysis offers many advantages to patients, but they require support to manage a home-based therapy such as peritoneal dialysis (PD). A rural emergency department provides an important safety net for patients requiring medical care, including managing complications of PD, such as peritonitis. Patients living in northern Alberta are spread out geographically and can be far from a PD training center, yet anecdotally, many rural sites do not provide care for these patients.

Objective:

Our aim was to identify the facilitators and barriers to nursing care in rural emergency departments in northern Alberta for patients receiving PD.

Design:

A qualitative interpretive descriptive approach was used.

Setting:

Rural emergency departments across northern Alberta.

Participants:

Purposeful sampling was used to seek participants from 1 of 4 rural acute care hospital emergency departments in northern Alberta. Six registered nurses and 1 licensed practical nurse agreed to participate in the study. They ranged in experience from 2 to 18 years. Two of the participants were unit managers, 2 were clinical nurse educators (CNEs), and the other 3 were staff nurses with 1 of them in a leadership position.

Methods:

Individual semistructured interview were conducted over the telephone. The interview guide was developed based on a review of the literature. Interviews continued until no new information was obtained, that is, data were saturated. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were recorded. A constant comparative approach was used for analysis. The coding process was both deductive (drawing from the literature) and inductive.

Results:

Seven participants were interviewed, and there were 4 main themes and 1 subtheme that emerged from the analysis: education (along with the subtheme of resources) was seen as both facilitators and barriers; patient/family ability to perform PD; infrequent exposure; and physician supports. Continuing education about PD was a facilitator, and the lack of education was a barrier to provision of PD care. Similarly, availability of resource materials about PD and access to a CNE were facilitators, while lack of these resources was a barrier to offering PD care. As PD was not always seen regularly, infrequent exposure was a barrier to offering PD care. Lack of physician supports, both from the locum physicians who were sometimes reluctant to care for these patients and the delays in reaching nephrologists were barriers.

Limitations:

The findings represent the perceptions of the emergency department nurses who participated. These perceptions may differ from those of nurses who work in other regions of the country. Furthermore, most participants were in a leadership role, and it may be that their perspectives differ from those of front-line nurses.

Conclusions:

The findings from our study highlight the need for availability of education and resource materials/persons to care for these patients. There is also a need for greater physician support from both local physicians as well as nephrologists to offer high-quality PD care.

Trial registration:

Not applicable. This study is not a clinical trial. It did not involve prospective assignment of participants to a treatment group.

Supporting the Establishment of New Home Dialysis Programs Through the Explore Home Dialysis Program

INTRODUCTION

The globally increasing prevalence of chronic kidney disease has resulted in an ever-growing demand for renal replacement therapy. Although programs are present around the world, there is a paucity of immersive educational programs that train clinicians and administrators to develop new home dialysis programs. Explore Home Dialysis (EHD) is a program created to fill this gap.

METHODS

We present the results of the evaluation of the EHD program. Our team interviewed 23 clinicians and administrators who participated in the EHD program. We also assessed country-specific needs and challenges associated with home dialysis.

RESULTS

The 4 main findings include (i) the evaluation of the effectiveness of the EHD program; (ii) the need for an educational program to train individuals on how to deploy home dialysis programs; (iii) evidence that such an educational program is beneficial to participants and for the establishment of new home dialysis programs; and (iv) the identification of barriers to the development of home dialysis programs in countries represented in this study. The data show an increased demand, with strong patient and provider interest in establishing new programs, interest in accessing resources to train clinical and administrative staff in how to run a home dialysis program, and positive feedback about the EHD program in general.

CONCLUSIONS

The data from this study were used in the next iteration of the EHD program, to inform clinicians about challenges in the deployment of new home dialysis programs, and to present educational resources that need to be developed in the future.

Terapias de sustitución de la función Renal: Metaestudio y síntesis de evidencias cualitativas

El objetivo del presente estudio fue sintetizar en términos de evidencias cualitativas o evidencias Q hallazgos derivados de estudios cualitativos frente al tema de las terapias de sustitución de la función renal (TSFR). Método: metaestudio cualitativo desarrollado en cuatro momentos. Resultados: se integraron 75 estudios. De los cuales, 52 exploraban experiencias relacionadas con hemodiálisis (HD), 10 de diálisis peritoneal (DP), 6 trasplante, 6 DP y HD al mismo tiempo y 1 estudio exploró las 3 TSFR. Los estudios incluidos describen y representan el fenómeno de vivir en una condición de cronicidad y estar sometido a una TSFR de manera muy semejante, que se agruparon en patrones comunes del fenómeno, estos son descritos en tres grandes temáticas: la metamorfosis de la vida; dolores diversos y la terapia invade la vida. Conclusión: los resultados dan cuenta de la estrecha interrelación de las dimensiones humanas, por esto el fenómeno de vivir en una TSFR genera una transfiguración el “Ser”, como totalidad, pues no es posible desligar una dimensión de otra, de allí la importancia de pensar la atención de las necesidades en perspectiva relacional y no jerarquizada.

Home hemodialysis: a comprehensive review of patient-centered and economic considerations

Internationally, the number of patients requiring treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) continues to increase, placing substantial burden on health systems and patients. Home hemodialysis (HD) has fluctuated in its popularity, and the rates of home HD vary considerably between and within countries although there is evidence suggesting a number of clinical, survival, economic, and quality of life (QoL) advantages associated with this treatment. International guidelines encourage shared decision making between patients and clinicians for the type of dialysis, with an emphasis on a treatment that aligned to the patients’ lifestyle. This is a comprehensive literature review of patient-centered and economic impacts of home HD with the studies published between January 2000 and July 2016. Data from the primary studies representing both efficiency and equity of home HD were presented as a narrative synthesis under the following topics: advantages to patients, barriers to patients, economic factors influencing patients, cost-effectiveness of home HD, and inequities in home HD delivery. There were a number of advantages for patients on home HD including improved survival and QoL and flexibility and potential for employment, compared to hospital HD. Similarly, there were several barriers to patients preferring or maintaining home HD, and the strategies to overcome these barriers were frequently reported. Good evidence reported that indigenous, low-income, and other socially disadvantaged individuals had reduced access to home HD compared to other forms of dialysis and that this situation compounds already-poor health outcomes on renal replacement therapy. Government policies that minimize barriers to home HD include reimbursement for dialysis-related out-of-pocket costs and employment-retention interventions for home HD patients and their family members. This review argues that home HD is a cost-effective treatment, and increasing the proportion of patients on this form of dialysis compared to hospital HD will result in a more equitable distribution of good health outcomes for individuals with ESKD.

The WISHED Trial: implementation of an interactive health communication application for patients with chronic kidney disease

Background

Despite many advantages over facility-based therapies, less than 25 % of prevalent dialysis patients in Ontario are on a home therapy. Interactive health communication applications, web-based packages for patients, have been shown to have a beneficial effect on knowledge, social support, self-efficacy, and behavioral and clinical outcomes but have not been evaluated in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Web-based tools designed for patients with CKD exist but to our knowledge have not been assessed in their ability to influence dialysis modality decision-making.

Objective

To determine if a web-based tool increases utilization of a home-based therapy in patients with CKD starting dialysis.

Design

This is a multi-centered randomized controlled study.

Setting

Participants will be recruited from sites in Canada.

Participants

Two hundred and sixty-four consenting patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 20 ml/min/1.73 m² who have received modality education will be enrolled in the study.

Measurements

The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants who are on dialysis using a home-based therapy within 3 months of dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes will include the proportion of patients intending to perform a home-based modality and measures of dialysis knowledge, decision conflict, and social support.

Methods

The between-group differences in frequencies will be expressed as either absolute risk differences and/or by calculating the odds ratio and its associated 95 % confidence interval.

Conclusions

This study will assess whether access to a website dedicated to supporting and promoting home-based dialysis therapies will increase the proportion of patients with CKD who initiate a home-based dialysis therapy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01403454, registration date: July 21, 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40697-016-0120-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impacts of Geographic Distance on Peritoneal Dialysis Utilization: Refining Models of Treatment Selection

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between distance to dialysis provider and patient selection of dialysis modality, informed by the absolute distance from a patient's home and relative distance of alternative modalities.

DATA SOURCES

U.S. Renal Data System.

STUDY DESIGN

About 70,131 patients initiating chronic dialysis and 4,795 dialysis facilities in 2006. The primary outcome was patient utilization of peritoneal dialysis (PD). Independent variables included absolute distance between patients' home and the nearest hemodialysis (HD) facility, relative distance between patients' home and nearest PD versus nearest HD facilities, and their interaction. Logistic regression was used to model distance on PD use, controlling for patient and market characteristics.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Nine percent of incident dialysis patients used PD in 2006. There was a positive, nonlinear relationship between absolute distance to HD services and PD use (p < .0001), with the magnitude of the effect increasing at greater distances. In terms of relative distance, odds of PD use increased if a PD facility was closer or the same distance as the nearest HD facility (p = .006). Interaction of distance measures to dialysis facilities was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of patient choice between alternative treatments should model distance to reflect all relevant dimensions of geographic access to treatment options.

Patient and caregiver values, beliefs and experiences when considering home dialysis as a treatment option: a semi-structured interview study

BACKGROUND

Home dialysis can offer improved quality of life and economic benefits compared with facility dialysis. Yet the uptake of home dialysis remains low around the world, which may be partly due to patients' lack of knowledge and barriers to shared and informed decision-making. We aimed to describe patient and caregiver values, beliefs and experiences when considering home dialysis, to inform strategies to align policy and practice with patients' needs.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with adult patients with chronic kidney disease Stage 4-5D (on dialysis <1 year) and their caregivers, recruited from three nephrology centres in New Zealand. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

In total, 43 patients [pre-dialysis (n = 18), peritoneal dialysis (n = 13), home haemodialysis (n = 4) and facility haemodialysis (n = 9)] and 9 caregivers participated. We identified five themes related to home dialysis: lacking decisional power (complexity of information, limited exposure to home dialysis, feeling disempowered, deprived of choice, pressure to choose), sustaining relationships (maintaining cultural involvement, family influence, trusting clinicians, minimizing social isolation), reducing lifestyle disruption (sustaining employment, avoiding relocation, considering additional expenses, seeking flexible schedules, creating free time), gaining confidence in choice (guarantee of safety, depending on professional certainty, reassurance from peers, overcoming fears) and maximizing survival.

CONCLUSIONS

To engage and empower patients and caregivers to consider home dialysis, a stronger emphasis on the development of patient-focused educational programmes and resources is suggested. Pre-dialysis and home dialysis programmes that address health literacy and focus on cultural and social values may reduce fears and build confidence around decisions to undertake home dialysis. Financial burdens may be minimized through provision of reimbursement programmes, employment support and additional assistance for patients, particularly those residing in remote areas.

An Incident Cohort Study Comparing Survival on Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis (Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Home dialysis is often recognized as a first-choice therapy for patients initiating dialysis. However, studies comparing clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis have been very limited.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry study assessed all Australian and New Zealand adult patients receiving home dialysis on day 90 after initiation of RRT between 2000 and 2012. The primary outcome was overall survival. The secondary outcomes were on-treatment survival, patient and technique survival, and death-censored technique survival. All results were adjusted with three prespecified models: multivariable Cox proportional hazards model (main model), propensity score quintile-stratified model, and propensity score-matched model.

RESULTS

The study included 10,710 patients on incident peritoneal dialysis and 706 patients on incident home hemodialysis. Treatment with home hemodialysis was associated with better patient survival than treatment with peritoneal dialysis (5-year survival: 85% versus 44%, respectively; log-rank P<0.001). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient survival (hazard ratio for overall death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.59) as well as better on-treatment survival (hazard ratio for on-treatment death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.45), composite patient and technique survival (hazard ratio for death or technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.40), and death-censored technique survival (hazard ratio for technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.41). Similar results were obtained with the propensity score models as well as sensitivity analyses using competing risks models and different definitions for technique failure and lag period after modality switch, during which events were attributed to the initial modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient and technique survival compared with peritoneal dialysis.

Cost of renal replacement: how to help as many as possible while keeping expenses reasonable?

The treatment of kidney diseases consumes a substantial amount of the health budget for a relatively small fraction of the overall population. If the nephrological community and society do not develop mechanisms to contain those costs, it will become impossible to continue assuring optimal outcomes and quality of life while treating all patients who need it. In this article, we describe several mechanisms to maintain sustainability of renal replacement therapy. These include (i) encouragement of transplantation after both living and deceased donation; (ii) stimulation of alternative dialysis strategies besides classical hospital haemodialysis, such as home haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or self-care and necessitating less reimbursement; (iii) promotion of educational activities guiding the patients towards therapies that are most suited for them; (iv) consideration of one or more of cost containment incentives such as bundling of reimbursement (if not affecting quality of the treatment), timely patient referral, green dialysis, start of dialysis based on clinical necessity rather than renal function parameters and/or prevention of CKD or its progression; (v) strategically planned adaptations to the expected growth of the ageing population in need of renal replacement; (vi) the necessity for support of research in the direction of helping as large as possible patient populations for acceptable costs; and (vii) the need for more patient-centred approaches. We also extend the discussion to the specific situation of kidney diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Finally, we point to the dramatic differences in accessibility and reimbursement of different modalities throughout Europe. We hope that this text will offer a framework for the nephrological community, including patients and nurses, and the concerned policy makers and caregivers on how to continue reaching all patients in need of renal replacement for affordable expenses.