Patient knowledge and interest on dialysis efficiency: a survey

The rationale, implementation, and effect of the Medicare CKD education benefit

Although it affects <1% of the US population, stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) has increased in prevalence in the United States, grown 67% between the early 1990s and the first part of this decade. It is important to consider new strategies to slow or halt this increase. A frameshift in patient care delivery is underway in kidney health care in the United States with a Medicare education benefit for patients with stage 4 CKD. This Medicare benefit is a unique program that has the potential to inform patients and families about CKD and prepare them for transitions in health states and kidney health care. For the greatest value of this benefit to be realized, it is critical for the health care community to accurately gauge patient understanding of CKD and provide curricula that are comprehensible and actionable for patients. This type of benefit is patient centered, yet it will succeed only with a willingness to review its effectiveness and revise it if needed.

Patient dialysis knowledge is associated with permanent arteriovenous access use in chronic hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient knowledge about chronic hemodialysis (CHD) is important for effective self-management behaviors, but little is known about its association with vascular access use.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Prospective cohort of adult incident CHD patients from May 2002 until November 2005 and followed for 6 mo after initiation of hemodialysis (HD). Patient knowledge was measured using the Chronic Hemodialysis Knowledge Survey (CHeKS). The primary outcome was dialysis access type at: baseline, 3 mo, and 6 mo after HD initiation. Secondary outcomes included anemia, nutritional, and mineral laboratory measures.

RESULTS

In 490 patients, the median (interquartile range) CHeKS score (0 to 100%) was 65%[52% to 78%]. Lower scores were associated with older age, fewer years of education, and nonwhite race. Patients with CHeKS scores 20 percentage points higher were more likely to use an arteriovenous fistula or graft compared with a catheter at HD initiation and 6 mo after adjustment for age, sex, race, education, and diabetes mellitus. No statistically significant associations were found between knowledge and laboratory outcome measures, except for a moderate association with serum albumin. Potential limitations include residual confounding and an underpowered study to determine associations with some clinical measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with less dialysis knowledge may be less likely to use an arteriovenous access for dialysis at initiation and after starting hemodialysis. Additional studies are needed to explore the impact of patient dialysis knowledge, and its improvement after educational interventions, on vascular access in hemodialysis.

CKD Patients and Erythropoietin: Do We Need Evidence-Based Informed Consent?

Background

Consent to therapy is increasingly requested in the form of “informed consent”.

Objective

To validate an evidence-based informed consent form for erythropoietin (EPO) therapy and to evaluate patient opinions about the informed consent approach.

Methods

An evidence-based informed consent form was developed as part of the Evidence-Based-Medicine course at the Medical School of Turin, Italy. It was validated by anonymous questionnaires (0–10 analogical scales and open answers) administered to patients at different stages of CKD (19 pre-ESRD, 26 hemodialysis, 12 transplant patients) attending an outpatient unit of the University of Turin, to 8 nurses, and to 26 medical students.

Results

All individuals filled in the questionnaire. Interest in a detailed explanation of the therapy was high (median 9), as was comprehension (median 9), with no differences between patients with regard to disease stage (pre-ESRD vs. RRT) or educational level. Prior knowledge of the therapy was affected by the educational level (p=0.013 for the advantages and p=0.004 for the side effects) and the professional role (patients vs caregivers: p=0.009 for the advantages and p<0.001 for side affects); patient knowledge of the advantages (median 6) tended to increase as the disease progressed (p=0.015). The most common response by patients was that informed consent was necessary for all drugs (35.1%); 73.1% of the caregivers considered it necessary only for severe side effects. The preferred modality of consent was discussion with the caregiver during the clinical controls (42% of all cases).

Conclusions

Patient interest in and comprehension of an informed consent form with a detailed explanation of the therapy was high; the caregiver's opinion was still the most valued teaching tool.

Vascular access survival and morbidity on daily dialysis: a comparative analysis of home and limited care haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Concerns about vascular access failure may have limited the widespread use of daily haemodialysis (DHD). We assessed the incidence and type of vascular access complications during DHD and other schedules, both at home and on limited care haemodialysis.

METHODS

All patients were treated in a limited care and home haemodialysis unit with a stable caregiver team (November 1998-November 2002). Vascular access failure, surgical treatment, angioplasty and declotting were studied alone or in combination by univariate and multivariate models. We analysed the effects of age, sex, comorbidity, previous vascular events, schedule, setting of treatment (home, limited care), dialysis follow-up, vascular access (native vs prosthetic, first vs subsequent) and setting of vascular access creation. 'Intention to treat' and 'per protocol' analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In 2160 patient-months (home dialysis: DHD 400 months, non-DHD 655 months; limited care: DHD 208 months; non-DHD 897 months), 57 adverse events occurred (27 failures), in which 30 were at home (nine DHD) and 27 were in limited care (five DHD). The probability of remaining free from adverse events at 6 and 12 months was 89% and 80% on DHD and 79% and 76% on other schedules ('intention to treat'). Univariate analyses revealed a significant difference for the setting of the vascular access creation (lower risk of vascular access complications in our centre) and sex (male sex was protective). Logistic regression and Cox analyses confirmed the role for the setting of the vascular access creation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although DHD did not appear as a risk factor for vascular access morbidity or failure at home or in a limited care centre setting, the setting of vascular access creation may influence its success.