An update on absolute and relative indications for dialysis treatment modalities

Background

Choosing a dialysis modality is an important decision for people to make as their kidney failure progresses. In doing so, their options should be informed by any absolute or relative indications that may favour one modality over another.

Methods

In creating this update, we reviewed literature using a framework that considered first, high-level outcomes (survival and modality transition) from large registry data and cohort studies when considering optimal patient pathways; second, factors at a dialysis provider level that might affect relative indications; and third, specific patient-level factors. Both main types of dialysis modality, peritoneal (PD) and haemodialysis (HD), and their subtypes were considered.

Results

For most people starting dialysis, survival is independent of modality, including those with diabetes. Better survival is seen in those with less comorbidity starting with PD or home HD, reflecting continued improvements over recent decades that have been greater than improvements seen for centre HD. There are provider-level differences in the perceived relative indications for home dialysis that appear to reflect variability in experience, prejudice, enthusiasm, and support for patients and carers. Absolute contraindications are uncommon and, in most cases, where modality prejudice exists, e.g. obesity, Adult Polycystic Kidney Disease, and social factors, this is not supported by reported outcomes.

Conclusion

Absolute contraindications to a particular dialysis modality are rare. Relative indications for or against particular modalities should be considered but are rarely more important than patient preferences.

Intervening to eliminate the centre-effect variation in home dialysis use: protocol for Inter-CEPt-a sequential mixed-methods study designing an intervention bundle

INTRODUCTION

Use of home dialysis by centres in the UK varies considerably and is decreasing despite attempts to encourage greater use. Knowing what drives this unwarranted variation requires in-depth understanding of centre cultural and organisational factors and how these relate to quantifiable centre performance, accounting for competing treatment options. This knowledge will be used to identify components of a practical and feasible intervention bundle ensuring this is realistic and cost-effective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Underpinned by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread and sustainability framework, our research will use an exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach. Insights from multisited focused team ethnographic and qualitative research at four case study sites will inform development of a national survey of 52 centres. Survey results, linked to patient-level data from the UK Renal Registry, will populate a causal graph describing patient and centre-level factors, leading to uptake of home dialysis and multistate models incorporating patient-level treatment modality history and mortality. This will inform a contemporary economic evaluation of modality cost-effectiveness that will quantify how modification of factors facilitating home dialysis, identified from the ethnography and survey, might yield the greatest improvements in costs, quality of life and numbers on home therapies. Selected from these factors, using the capability, opportunity and motivation for behaviour change framework (COM-B) for intervention design, the optimal intervention bundle will be developed through workshops with patients and healthcare professionals to ensure acceptability and feasibility. Patient and public engagement and involvement is embedded throughout the project.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority reference 20-WA-0249. The intervention bundle will comprise components for all stake holder groups: commissioners, provider units, recipients of dialysis, their caregivers and families. To reache all these groups, a variety of knowledge exchange methods will be used: short guides, infographics, case studies, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, patient conferences, 'Getting it Right First Time' initiative, Clinical Reference Group (dialysis).

Patients' perspectives of fluid management: A multicentre comparative study of home and incentre haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

There is increasing worldwide interest in person-centred care in haemodialysis and home haemodialysis (HHD). Intradialytic fluid management is a vital component of haemodialysis, and often a shared decision, yet patients' perspectives and experience of related decisions are largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the perspectives of patients receiving home or incentre haemodialysis (IHD), in relation to intradialytic fluid management.

DESIGN

A multicentre cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Eight hundred and thirty-nine patients receiving IHD and 99 patients receiving HHD, across six English renal units.

MEASUREMENTS

Self-reported measures of understanding, experiences and control of fluid management, and willingness to achieve target weight. An objective test of patients' ability to relate common signs and symptoms to fluid overload or excessive ultrafiltration.

RESULTS

Patients receiving HHD had greater knowledge than those receiving IHD (66.1% vs. 42.3%, p < 0.001) about causes of common signs and symptoms which remained when controlling for age, education and years since beginning haemodialysis. Patients receiving HHD felt more in control of and had greater self-reported adherence to fluid management (p < 0.01), yet knowledge gaps existed in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater patient knowledge and its practice in HHD may contribute to improved fluid balance and outcomes. Whilst patient selection may contribute towards these differences, the training patients receive when opting for HHD and subsequent experience are likely to be key contributing factors. Integrating aspects of education on fluid management from HHD training programmes should be considered in IHD, and further targeted, robust education remains an unmet need.

Multidisciplinary staff attitudes to home haemodialysis therapy

Background: More than a decade after the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommendation of home haemodialysis (home HD) for 10-15% of those needing renal replacement therapy, the uptake across different regions in the UK remains uneven. Methods: This survey is part of the Barriers to Successful Implementation of Care in Home Haemodialysis (BASIC-HHD) study, an observational study of patient and organizational factor barriers and enablers of home HD uptake, in the UK. The study centres had variable prevalence of home HD by design [low: <3% (2), medium: 5-8% (2) and high: >8% (1)]. This survey was administered electronically in 2013, and had 20 questions pertaining to home HD beliefs and practices. A total of 104 members of staff across five study centres were approached to complete the survey. Results: The response rate was 46%, mostly from experienced HD practitioners. Most believed in the benefits of home HD therapy. Across all centres, respondents believed that preconceptions about patients' and carers' ability to cope with home HD (35% to a great or very great extent) and staff knowledge and bias influenced offer of home HD therapy (45%). Also, compared with respondents from high prevalence (HP) centre, those from low prevalence (LP) centres felt that display and presentation of dialysis information lacked clarity and uniformity (44% versus 18%), and that a better set-up for training patients for self-care HD was required (72.8% versus 33.3%). A greater proportion of respondents from the HP centre expressed concerns over caregiver support and respite care for patients on home HD (63.7% versus 33.3%). Conclusions: Survey results indicate that across all centres in the study, there is an appetite for growing home HD. There are some differences in attitudes and practice between LP and HP centres. There are other domains where all centres have expressed concern and addressing these will be influential in navigating change from the current course.

GPs' views on managing advanced chronic kidney disease in primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has become a significant part of the GP's workload since the introduction of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in 2008. Patients with advanced CKD (stages G4 and G5) often have comorbidities, varied disease progression, and are likely to be older. GPs may experience difficulties with management decisions for patients with advanced CKD, including when to refer to nephrology.

AIM

To explore GPs' views of managing patients with advanced CKD and referral to secondary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative study with GPs in four areas of England: London, Bristol, Birmingham, and Stevenage.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with 19 GPs. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

GPs had little experience of managing patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis or having conservative care (treatment without dialysis or a transplant), and welcomed guidance. Some GPs referred patients based on renal function alone and some used wider criteria including age and multimorbidity. GPs reported a tension between national guidance and local advice, and some had learnt from experience that patients were discharged back to primary care. GPs with more experience of managing CKD referred patients later, or sometimes not at all, if there were no additional problems and if dialysis was seen as not in the patient's interests.

CONCLUSION

GPs want guidance on managing older patients with advanced CKD and comorbidities, which better incorporates agreement between local and national recommendations to clarify referral criteria. GPs are not generally aware of conservative care programmes provided by renal units, however, they appear happy to contribute to such care or alternatively, lead conservative management with input from renal teams.

The anticipated and the lived experience of home and in-centre haemodialysis: Is there a disconnect?

This qualitative study aimed to explore home haemodialysis and in-centre haemodialysis patients’ experience, to illuminate barriers and facilitators in the uptake and maintenance of home haemodialysis. Thirty-two semi-structured interviews with patients receiving home haemodialysis or in-centre haemodialysis were analysed using framework analysis. Four themes emerged: ‘perceptions of self’; ‘impact of haemodialysis on family’; ‘perceived advantages and disadvantages of home haemodialysis and in-centre haemodialysis’ and ‘practical issues and negotiating haemodialysis’. The lived experience of home haemodialysis was in contrast to the lived experience of in-centre haemodialysis and to the anticipated experience of home haemodialysis, highlighting patient factors that contributed to under-usage of home haemodialysis.

Self-cannulation for haemodialysis: patient attributes, clinical correlates and self-cannulation predilection models

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

With emerging evidence in support of home haemodialysis (HHD), patient factors which determine uptake of the modality need to be better understood. Self-cannulation (SC) is a major step towards enabling self-care 'in-centre' and at home and remains the foremost barrier to its uptake. Human factors governing this aspect of HD practice are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to better understand self-cannulation preferences and factors which define them in end stage renal disease (ESRD).

DESIGN

In this multicentre study, 508 of 535 patients from predialysis (Group A: n = 222), in-centre (Group B: n = 213), and home HD (Group C: n = 100) responded to a questionnaire with 3 self-cannulation questions. Simultaneously, data on clinical, cognitive and psychosocial variables were ascertained. The primary outcome measure was 'perceived ability to self-cannulate AV access'. Predictive models were developed using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

36.6% of predialysis patients (A) and 29.1% of the 'in-centre' haemodialysis patients (B) felt able to consider SC for HD. Technical-skills related apprehension was highest in Group B (14.4%) patients. Response to routine venepuncture and the types of SC concerns were significant predictors of perceived ability to self-cannulate. There was no significant difference in concern for pain across the groups. In multivariable regression analysis, age, education level, 3 MS score, hypoalbuminemia in Groups B & C and additionally, attitude to routine phlebotomy and the nature of specific concern for self-cannulation in Groups A, B and C, are significant predictors of SC preference. The unadjusted c-statistics of models 1 (derived from Group A and validated on A) and 2 (derived from B+C and validated on B), are 0.76(95% CI 0.69, 0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.74, 0.87) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high prevalence of perceived ability to self-cannulate. Modifiable SC concerns exist in ESRD. The use of predictive models to objectively define and target education and training strategies could potentially impact on HD self-management and future uptake of home HD.

A national study of practice patterns in UK renal units in the use of dialysis and conservative kidney management to treat people aged 75 years and over with chronic kidney failure

Background

Conservative kidney management (CKM) is recognised as an alternative to dialysis for a significant number of older adults with multimorbid stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD5). However, little is known about the way CKM is delivered or how it is perceived.

Aim

To determine the practice patterns for the CKM of older patients with CKD5, to inform service development and future research.

Objectives

(1) To describe the differences between renal units in the extent and nature of CKM, (2) to explore how decisions are made about treatment options for older patients with CKD5, (3) to explore clinicians’ willingness to randomise patients with CKD5 to CKM versus dialysis, (4) to describe the interface between renal units and primary care in managing CKD5 and (5) to identify the resources involved and potential costs of CKM.

Methods

Mixed-methods study. Interviews with 42 patients aged > 75 years with CKD5 and 60 renal unit staff in a purposive sample of nine UK renal units. Interviews informed the design of a survey to assess CKM practice, sent to all 71 UK units. Nineteen general practitioners (GPs) were interviewed concerning the referral of CKD patients to secondary care. We sought laboratory data on new CKD5 patients aged > 75 years to link with the nine renal units’ records to assess referral patterns.

Results

Sixty-seven of 71 renal units completed the survey. Although terminology varied, there was general acceptance of the role of CKM. Only 52% of units were able to quantify the number of CKM patients. A wide range reflected varied interpretation of the designation ‘CKM’ by both staff and patients. It is used to characterise a future treatment option as well as non-dialysis care for end-stage kidney failure (i.e. a disease state equivalent to being on dialysis). The number of patients in the latter group on CKM was relatively small (median 8, interquartile range 4.5–22). Patients’ expectations of CKM and dialysis were strongly influenced by renal staff. In a minority of units, CKM was not discussed. When discussed, often only limited information about illness progression was provided. Staff wanted more research into the relative benefits of CKM versus dialysis. There was almost universal support for an observational methodology and a quarter would definitely be willing to participate in a randomised clinical trial, indicating that clinicians placed value on high-quality evidence to inform decision-making. Linked data indicated that most CKD5 patients were known to renal units. GPs expressed a need for guidance on when to refer older multimorbid patients with CKD5 to nephrology care. There was large variation in the scale and model of CKM delivery. In most, the CKM service was integrated within the service for all non-renal replacement therapy CKD5 patients. A few units provided dedicated CKM clinics and some had dedicated, modest funding for CKM.

Conclusions

Conservative kidney management is accepted across UK renal units but there is much variation in the way it is described and delivered. For best practice, and for CKM to be developed and systematised across all renal units in the UK, we recommend (1) a standard definition and terminology for CKM, (2) research to measure the relative benefits of CKM and dialysis and (3) development of evidence-based staff training and patient education interventions.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Understanding by older patients of dialysis and conservative management for chronic kidney failure

Background

Older adults with chronic kidney disease stage 5 may be offered a choice between dialysis and conservative management. Few studies have explored patients’ reasons for choosing conservative management and none have compared the views of those who have chosen different treatments across renal units.

Study Design

Qualitative study with semistructured interviews.

Settings & Participants

Patients 75 years or older recruited from 9 renal units. Units were chosen to reflect variation in the scale of delivery of conservative management.

Methodology

Semistructured interviews audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim.

Analytical Approach

Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

42 interviews were completed, 4 to 6 per renal unit. Patients were sampled from those receiving dialysis, those preparing for dialysis, and those choosing conservative management. 14 patients in each group were interviewed. Patients who had chosen different treatments held varying beliefs about what dialysis could offer. The information that patients reported receiving from clinical staff differed between units. Patients from units with a more established conservative management pathway were more aware of conservative management, less often believed that dialysis would guarantee longevity, and more often had discussed the future with staff. Some patients receiving conservative management reported that they would have dialysis if they became unwell in the future, indicating the conditional nature of their decision.

Limitations

Recruitment of older adults with frailty and comorbid conditions was difficult and therefore transferability of findings to this population is limited.

Conclusions

Older adults with chronic kidney disease stage 5 who have chosen different treatment options have contrasting beliefs about the likely outcomes of dialysis for those who are influenced by information provided by renal units. Supporting renal staff in discussing conservative management as a valid alternative to dialysis for a subset of patients will aid informed decision making. There is a need for better evidence about conservative management to support shared decision making for older people with chronic kidney failure.

Renal centre characteristics and physician practice patterns associated with home dialysis use

BACKGROUND

There is a wide variation in home dialysis use (peritoneal dialysis and home haemodialysis) between renal centres. This study identifies which centre characteristics and practice patterns are associated with home dialysis use.

METHODS

An observational study of all UK patients starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) in 2007-2008 using patient characteristics from the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) and renal centre characteristics ascertained from a national survey. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine the association between patient and centre characteristics and home dialysis uptake.

RESULTS

Twenty-six per cent of 11 913 patients used home dialysis and survey responses were available from every renal centre. After taking into account patient factors, several centre factors were associated with a higher probability of home dialysis: physicians aspiring to a higher 'ideal' peritoneal dialysis rate (odds ratio, OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.37, P = 0.003 per 10% increase in 'ideal' percentage), early use of peritoneal dialysis (PD, OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.18-1.95, P < 0.001), use of home visits to educate patients pre-dialysis (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.05-1.83, P = 0.02) and to provide trouble-shooting advice for existing home dialysis patients (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.11-2.42, P = 0.01). Using videos/DVDs as part of the pre-dialysis education programme was associated with a lower probability of home dialysis, but this was correlated with lower levels of physician enthusiasm (r = -0.48, P < 0.001). After adjustment for this, the association disappeared (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55-1.07, P = 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Home dialysis use is associated with modifiable centre factors as well as individual patient characteristics.

Peritoneal dialysis--current status and future challenges

Peritoneal dialysis is now a well established, mature treatment modality for advanced chronic kidney disease. The medium term (at least 5 year) survival of patients on peritoneal dialysis is currently equivalent to that of those on haemodialysis, and is particularly good in patients who are new to renal replacement therapy and have less comorbidity. Nevertheless the modality needs to keep pace with the constantly evolving challenges associated with the provision and delivery of health care. These challenges, which are gradually converging at a global level, include ageing of the population, multimorbidity of patients, containment of cost, increasing self care and environmental issues. In this context, peritoneal dialysis faces particular challenges that include multiple barriers to the therapy and unsatisfactory and poorly defined technique survival as well as limitations relating to intrinsic aspects of the therapy, such as peritoneal membrane longevity and hypoalbuminaemia. To move the therapy forward and favourably influence health-care policy, the peritoneal dialysis community needs to integrate their research effort more effectively by undertaking clinically meaningful studies-with a strong focus on technique survival--that are supported by multidisciplinary expertise in patient-centred outcomes, study design and analysis.

Clinician beliefs and attitudes about home haemodialysis: a multinational interview study

OBJECTIVES

To explore clinician beliefs and attitudes about home haemodialysis in global regions where the prevalence of home haemodialysis is low, and to identify barriers to developing home haemodialysis services and possible strategies to increase acceptance and uptake of home haemodialysis.

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews, thematic analysis.

SETTING

15 dialysis centres in Italy, Portugal, France, Germany, Sweden and Argentina.

PARTICIPANTS

28 nephrologists and 14 nurses caring for patients receiving in-centre haemodialysis.

RESULTS

We identified four major themes as being central to clinician beliefs about home haemodialysis in regions without established services: external structural barriers (ready access to dialysis centres, inadequate housing conditions, unstable economic environment); dialysis centre characteristics (availability of alternative treatments, competing service priorities, commercial interests); clinician responsibility and motivation (preserving safety and security, lack of awareness, knowledge and experience, potential to offer lifestyle benefits, professional interest and advancement); and cultural apprehension (an unrelenting imposition, carer burden, attachment to professional healthcare provision, limited awareness).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recognising the potential benefits of home haemodialysis, clinicians practicing in Europe and South America felt apprehensive and doubted the feasibility of home haemodialysis programmes. Programmes that provide clinicians with direct experience of home haemodialysis could increase acceptance and motivation for home-based haemodialysis, as might service prioritisation and funding models that favour home haemodialysis.