Barriers and opportunities to increase PD incidence and prevalence: Lessons from a European Survey

Towards a better uptake of home dialysis in Europe: understanding the present and looking to the future

Use of peritoneal dialysis and home haemodialysis remains low in Europe, with the highest use in Scandinavian countries and the lowest in Eastern and Central Europe despite the advantages for people on dialysis and economic advantages for healthcare systems. This is partly due to the impact of the haemodialysis industry resulting in proliferation of haemodialysis units and nephrologist reimbursement related to use of haemodialysis. Equally important is the bias against home dialysis at both clinician and healthcare system levels. The underlying causes of this bias are discussed in relation to a mechanistic view of the human body, lack of compassion, failure to adjust dialysis provision for older age and frailty, proliferation of small dialysis centres, and complexity of decision-making and clinical care. For home dialysis to flourish, we need to foster a change in attitude to and vision of the aims of healthcare so that enabling meaningful activities of people requiring dialysis, as explored in the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology initiative, rather than achieving biological numbers become the focus of care delivery.

Factors influencing renal replacement therapy modality choice from the nephrologist's perspective

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers quality of life and empowerment for persons with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Nevertheless, the prevalence of PD is low in Belgium and Europe in general. Reimbursement, patient mix and late referral have been quoted as underlying reasons. However, to date no one-size-fits-all solution increasing uptake of PD has been successfully implemented. We aimed to understand the nephrologist's perspective, beliefs, and experiences on dialysis modality selection and to clarify underlying process-level and intrinsic motivations steering final decisions.

METHODS

Using purposeful sampling, Belgian nephrologists (non-/academic, geographical spread, age, gender) were selected. We conducted semi-structured interviews, and audiotapes were transcribed verbatim. Meaningful units were grouped into (sub-)themes, and a conceptual framework was developed using grounded theory according to Charmaz as guidance.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine nephrologists were interviewed. We identified four themes: Trust and belief (in PD as a technique; own expertise, knowledge and team; in behavior of patient, family practitioner), feeling of control (paternalism; insecurity; prejudice), vision of care and approach (shared decision making; troubleshooting attitude; flexibility and creativity; complacency), and organizational issues (predialysis; access; financial; and assisted PD).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these interviews, it is apparent that next to already identified singular issues such as late referral, predialysis education, patient mix and financial incentives, more intrinsic factors also impact uptake of home-based therapies. These factors intertwine and relate both to process-level topics and to attitudes and culture of the nephrologists within the team.

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.