Exploring the impact of a decision support intervention on vascular access decisions in chronic hemodialysis patients: study protocol

Education for patients with progressive CKD and acute-start dialysis

For individuals living with CKD and those who have been discovered to have ESRD, the decisions facing them can be daunting. Such decisions include having renal replacement therapy (RRT) or conservative care, having a kidney transplant, or selecting a modality of dialysis that would fit their lifestyle and values. Education at this critical time is essential, but it must be tailored to the individual and his or her readiness to learn, and it must be provided with empathy and understanding of the chronicity of the disease and the magnitude of the effect of kidney failure on their life. We present strategies derived from education and psychology that can assist health-care practitioners to provide such education and support to individuals with advanced CKD. We also present an approach to educate and support those who have urgently started dialysis and require chronic RRT. This educational model has its basis in theories of education and decision-making and has been used with success in this population.

Considerations in starting a patient with advanced frailty on dialysis: complex biology meets challenging ethics

Nephrologists have focused on the uremic syndrome as an indication for dialysis. The elderly frail renal patient approaching ESRD represents a complex biologic system that is already failing. This patient phenotype exhibits progressive geriatric disabilities and dependence interspersed with shrinking periods of stability regardless of whether dialysis is started. Consequently, the frail renal patient faces challenging treatment choices underpinned by ethical tensions. Identifying the advanced frail renal patient and optimizing the shared decision-making process will enable him or her to make well informed choices based on an understanding of his or her overall condition and personal values and preferences. This approach will also permit nephrologists to fulfill their ethical obligations to respect patient autonomy, promote patient benefit, and minimize patient harm.

Validation of SURE, a four-item clinical checklist for detecting decisional conflict in patients

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine the psychometric properties of SURE, a 4-item checklist designed to screen for clinically significant decisional conflict in clinical practice.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of a clustered randomized trial assessing the effect of DECISION+2, a 2-hour online tutorial followed by a 2-hour interactive workshop on shared decision making, on decisions to use antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. Patients completed SURE and also the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), as the gold standard, after consultation. We evaluated internal consistency of SURE using the Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient (KR-20). We compared DCS and SURE scores using the Spearman correlation coefficient. We assessed sensitivity and specificity of SURE scores (cut-off score ≤3 out of 4) by identifying patients with and without clinically significant decisional conflict (DCS score >37.5 on a scale of 0-100).

RESULTS

Of the 712 patients recruited during the trial, 654 completed both tools. SURE scores showed adequate internal consistency (KR-20 coefficient of 0.7). There was a significant correlation between DCS and SURE scores (Spearman's ρ = -0.45, P < 0.0001). The prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict as estimated by the DCS was 5.2% (95% CI 3.7-7.3). Sensitivity and specificity of SURE ≤3 were 94.1% (95% CI 78.9-99.0) and 89.8% (95% CI 87.1-92.0), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SURE shows adequate psychometric properties in a primary care population with a low prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict. SURE has the potential to be a useful screening tool for practitioners, responding to the growing need for detecting clinically significant decisional conflict in patients.

Systemic barriers to optimal hemodialysis access

Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are considered the gold standard for hemodialysis vascular access based on their superior patency, low complication rates, improved adequacy, lower costs to the health care system, and decreased risk of patient mortality. The goals of the Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative are to achieve a prevalent AVF use rate of at least 66% nationally, to decrease central venous catheter use, and to reduce overall vascular access complication rates among patients on hemodialysis. Achieving optimal vascular access is a complex process and, unlike other dialysis outcomes, requires patient involvement as well as collaboration among nephrologists, surgeons, interventionalists, dialysis facilities, primary care physicians, and hospital systems. In 2009, the Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative assembled a team from varied backgrounds and perspectives to discover the systemic root causes as to why the AVF use rate in the United States is significantly lower than that in other industrialized countries. Ultimately, the 139 latent root causes identified by the root cause analysis team fall into the categories of patient, physician, and system. This article summarizes the current controversies in regard to improving AVF placement and reducing central venous catheter use, related to each of these three categories.

Education in vascular access

The successful creation and use of an arteriovenous vascular access (VA) requires a coordinated, educated multidisciplinary team to ensure an optimal VA for each patient. Patient education programs on VA are associated with increased arteriovenous VA use at dialysis initiation. Education should be tailored to patient goals and preferences with the understanding that experiential education from patient to patient is far more influential than that provided by the healthcare professional. VA education for the nephrologist should focus on addressing the systematic and patient-level barriers in achieving a functional VA, with specific components relating to VA creation, maturation, and cannulation that consider patient goals and preferences. A deficit in nursing skills in the area of assessment and cannulation can have devastating consequences for hemodialysis patients. Delivery of an integrated education program increases nurses' knowledge of VA and development of simulation programs or constructs to assist in cannulation of the VA will greatly facilitate the much needed skill transfer. Adequate VA surgical training and experience are critical to the creation and outcomes of VA. Simulations can benefit nephrologists, dialysis nurses surgeons, and interventionalists though aiding in surgical creation, understanding of the physiology and anatomy of a dysfunctional VA, and practicing cannulation techniques. All future educational initiatives must emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary care to attain successful VA outcomes.