Overcoming the Underutilisation of Peritoneal Dialysis

Multidimensional analysis of factors responsible for the low prevalence of ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Germany (MAU-PD): a cross-sectional Mixed-Methods Study Protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patients with end-stage kidney failure can be treated either by transplant or by dialysis, which can be administered as haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). Although they are equivalent therapeutic options in terms of mortality, the percentage of patients in Germany treated with PD is currently very low (∼6%) compared with other countries. The aim of our study is to analyse the factors behind this percentage and their relevance to the choice of dialysis treatment in Germany. This includes analyses of regional disparities in the provision of care for dialysis patients as well as the evaluations of costs and the influence of reimbursement structures. This approach should provide further insights to explain the variation in the usage of PD and HD and will help to define starting points for future interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed-methods approach will be applied to several data sources, including administrative data (ambulatory physicians' claim data, statutory health insurance claim data), quality assurance data from one of the largest German dialysis providers Kuratorium für Dialyse (KfH) and qualitative and quantitative survey data (patients, nephrologists and dialysis nurses). Qualitative data will be analysed content-analytically. Based on the quantitative data, multivariable analyses will be performed and, where possible, hierarchical models will be tested. This multidimensional approach will enable us to account for the different factors influencing the penetration of PD in Germany.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval (17-299) has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne on 25 April 2018. National and international dissemination will be accomplished by informing healthcare practitioners, patients and professional organisations and other stakeholders via conferences, scientific and non-scientific publications and seminars.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00012555; Pre-Results.

Teaching Pediatric Peritoneal Dialysis Globally through Virtual Simulation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite the increasing prevalence of childhood kidney disease worldwide, there is a shortage of clinicians trained to provide peritoneal dialysis (PD). E-learning technologies may provide a solution to improve knowledge in PD. We describe the development of a virtual PD simulator and report the first 22 months of online usage.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The PD simulator was developed and released on OPENPediatrics in January of 2016. A prospective study of international, multidisciplinary healthcare providers was conducted from January of 2016 through October of 2017. User action data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and linear regression. Paired t tests compared user pre- and post-test scores. User satisfaction was assessed by survey.

RESULTS

The simulator was accessed by 1066 users in 70 countries. Users spent a median of 35 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 14-84) in the simulator. Users who completed the structured learning curriculum (n=300) spent a median of 85 minutes (IQR 46-95), and those who completed the entire simulator (n=63) spent a median of 122 minutes (IQR 69-195). Users who completed the simulator were more likely to scroll through text and access the simulator in multiple sessions. The 300 users that completed testing showed statistically significant increases in the post- versus pretest scores, with a mean increase of 36.4 of 100 points, SD 19.9 (95% confidence interval, 34.1 to 38.6, P<0.001). Eighty-seven percent (20 of 23) of survey respondents felt the simulator was relevant to their clinical practice, and 78% (18 of 23) would recommend it to others.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first reported virtual PD simulator. Increased test scores were observed between pre- and post-tests by clinicians who completed testing, across disciplines, training levels, and resource settings.