Nephrologists' perspectives on dialysis treatment: results of an international survey

Kidney Transplantation Contraindications: Variation in Nephrologist Practice and Training Vintage

Introduction

Health system leaders aim to increase access to kidney transplantation in part by encouraging nephrologists to refer more patients for transplant evaluation. Little is known about nephrologists' referral decisions and whether nephrologists with older training vintage weigh patient criteria differently (e.g., more restrictively).

Methods

Using a novel, iteratively validated survey of US-based nephrologists, we examined how nephrologists assess adult patients' suitability for transplant, focusing on established, important criteria: 7 clinical (e.g., overweight) and 7 psychosocial (e.g., insurance). We quantified variation in nephrologist restrictiveness-proportion of criteria interpreted as absolute or partial contraindications versus minor or negligible concerns-and tested associations between restrictiveness and nephrologist age (proxy for training vintage) in logistic regression models, controlling for nephrologist-level and practice-level factors.

Results

Of 144 nephrologists invited, 42 survey respondents (29% response rate) were 85% male and 54% non-Hispanic White, with mean age 52 years, and 67% spent ≥1 day/wk in outpatient dialysis facilities. Nephrologists interpreted patient criteria inconsistently; consistency was lower for psychosocial criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.28) than for clinical criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.43; P < 0.01). With each additional 10 years of age, nephrologists' odds of interpreting criteria restrictively (top tertile) doubled (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-4.07), with marginal statistical significance. This relationship was significant when interpreting psychosocial criteria (aOR: 3.18; 95% CI: 1.16-8.71) but not when interpreting clinical criteria (aOR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52-2.38).

Conclusion

Nephrologists interpret evaluation criteria variably when assessing patient suitability for transplant. Guideline-based educational interventions could influence nephrologists' referral decision-making differentially by age.

Main Barriers to the Introduction of a Home Haemodialysis Programme in Poland: A Review of the Challenges for Implementation and Criteria for a Successful Programme

Introduction: Home dialysis in Poland is restricted to the peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality, with the majority of dialysis patients treated using in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD). Home haemodialysis (HHD) is an additional home therapy to PD and provides an attractive alternative to ICHD that combines dialysis with social distancing; eliminates transportation needs; and offers clinical, economic, and quality of life benefits. However, HHD is not currently provided in Poland. This review was performed to provide an overview of the main barriers to the introduction of a HHD programme in Poland. Main findings: The main high-level barrier to introducing HHD in Poland is the absence of specific health legislation required for clinician prescribing of HHD. Other barriers to overcome include clear definition of reimbursement, patient training and education (including infrastructure and experienced personnel), organisation of logistics, and management of complications. Partnering with a large care network for HHD represents an alternative option to payers for the provision of a new HHD service. This may reduce some of the barriers which need to be overcome when compared with the creation of a new HHD service and its supporting network due to the pre-existing infrastructure, processes, and staff of a large care network. Conclusions: Provision of HHD is not solely about the provision of home treatment, but also the organisation and definition of a range of support services that are required to deliver the service. HHD should be viewed as an additional, complementary option to existing dialysis modalities which enables choice of modality best suited to a patient’s needs.

Does delivering more dialysis improve clinical outcomes? What randomized controlled trials have shown

Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have sought to determine whether different dialysis techniques, dialysis doses and frequencies of treatment are able to improve clinical outcomes in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Virtually all of these RCTs were enacted on the premise that 'more' haemodialysis might improve clinical outcomes compared to 'conventional' haemodialysis. Aim of the present narrative review was to analyse these landmark RCTs by posing the following question: were their intervention strategies (i.e., earlier dialysis start, higher haemodialysis dose, intensive haemodialysis, increase in convective transport, starting haemodialysis with three sessions per week) able to improve clinical outcomes? The answer is no. There are at least two main reasons why many RCTs have failed to demonstrate the expected benefits thus far: (1) in general, RCTs included relatively small cohorts and short follow-ups, thus producing low event rates and limited statistical power; (2) the designs of these studies did not take into account that ESKD does not result from a single disease entity: it is a collection of different diseases and subtypes of kidney dysfunction. Patients with advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis treatment differ on a multitude of levels including residual kidney function, biochemical parameters (e.g., acid base balance, serum electrolytes, mineral and bone disorder), and volume overload. In conclusion, the different intervention strategies of the RCTs herein reviewed were not able to improve clinical outcomes of ESKD patients. Higher quality studies are needed to guide patients and clinicians in the decision-making process. Future RCTs should account for the heterogeneity of patients when considering inclusion/exclusion criteria and study design, and should a priori consider subgroup analyses to highlight specific subgroups that can benefit most from a particular intervention.

Results of the European EDITH nephrologist survey on factors influencing treatment modality choice for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Access to forms of dialysis, kidney transplantation (Tx) and comprehensive conservative management (CCM) for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) varies across European countries. Attitudes of nephrologists, information provision and decision-making may influence this access and nephrologists may experience several barriers when providing treatments for ESKD.

METHODS

We surveyed European nephrologists and kidney transplant surgeons treating adults with ESKD about factors influencing modality choice. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the opinions of professionals from European countries with low-, middle- and high-gross domestic product purchasing power parity (GDP PPP).

RESULTS

In total, 681 professionals from 33 European countries participated. Respondents from all GDP categories indicated that ∼10% of patients received no information before the start of renal replacement therapy (RRT) (P = 0.106). Early information provision and more involvement of patients in decision-making were more frequently reported in middle- and high-GDP countries (P < 0.05). Professionals' attitudes towards several treatments became more positive with increasing GDP (P < 0.05). Uptake of in-centre haemodialysis was sufficient to 73% of respondents, but many wanted increased uptake of home dialysis, Tx and CCM. Respondents experienced different barriers according to availability of specific treatments in their centre. The occurrence of barriers (financial, staff shortage, lack of space/supplies and patient related) decreased with increasing GDP (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in factors influencing modality choice when providing RRT or CCM to adults with ESKD were found among low-, middle- and high-GDP countries in Europe. Therefore a unique pan-European policy to improve access to treatments may be inefficient. Different policies for clusters of countries could be more useful.

Exploring stakeholders and their requirements in the process of home hemodialysis: A literature review

Providing home hemodialysis (HHD) therapy is a complex process that not only requires the use of a complex technology but also involves a diverse group of stakeholders, and each stakeholder has their requirements and may not share a common interest. Bringing them together will require the alignment of their interests. A process management perspective can help to accomplish the alignment of their interests. To align their interests, it is crucial to identify interest groups and understand their interests. The main objective of this paper is to identify the stakeholders and represents their interests as a list of requirements in the HHD process. An extensive literature review has been carried out and PubMed was used for literature extraction. In total, 1848 articles were retrieved of which 80 have fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A large array of actors is identified and their interests/requirements at different stages of the HHD process are represented in the form of a list. They have both common and conflicting requirements in the HHD process. If these requirements are aligned and balanced, a stakeholder's driven treatment process will be developed and a real improvement will be achieved in the treatment process.

Management Options for an Older Adult With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and Dementia: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

About 15% of adults in the United States-37 million persons-have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Chronic kidney disease is divided into 5 groups, ranging from stage 1 to stage 5 CKD, whereas end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is defined as permanent kidney failure. The treatment options for ESKD are kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and conservative management. The options for KRT include hemodialysis (either in-center or at home), peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplant. Conservative management, a multidisciplinary model of care for patients with stage 5 CKD who want to avoid dialysis, is guided by patient values, preferences, and goals, with a focus on quality of life and symptom management. In 2015, the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative recommended that patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 be educated about options for both KRT and conservative management. In 2018, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended that assessment for KRT or conservative management start at least 1 year before the need for therapy. It also recommended that in choosing a management approach, predicted quality of life, predicted life expectancy, patient preferences, and other patient factors be considered, because little difference in outcomes has been found among options. Here, 2 experts-a nephrologist and a general internist-palliative care physician-reflect on the care of a patient with advanced CKD and mild to moderate dementia. They discuss the management options for patients with advanced CKD, the pros and cons of each method, and how to help a patient choose among the options.

Home run-results of a chronic kidney disease Telemedicine Patient Education Study

Background

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) incidence is increasing and associated mortality and morbidity are high. Educating patients is effective in delaying progression and establishing optimal renal replacement therapy (RRT). Tele-education/telemedicine (TM) can be an effective tool to provide such education, but there are no available data quantifying its effectiveness. We attempted to establish such evidence correlating the effect of education in patient choices and with the start of actual RRT. We present results from a 3-year pilot study evaluating the effectiveness of comprehensive predialysis education (CPE) through TM for CKD patients compared with a standard care group [face to face (FTF)]. The patient’s ability to choose RRT was the primary endpoint.

Methods

This was a randomized controlled study providing CPE over three classes at nine sites (one FTF and eight TM). Three assessment tools were utilized to compare groups: CKD knowledge, literacy and quality of life.

Results

A total of 47.1% of FTF and 52.2% of TM patients reported not having enough information to choose a modality. This decreased by the third visit (FTF 7.4%, TM 13.2%). Home modality choices more than doubled in both groups (FTF 25.8–67.7%, TM 22.2–50.1%). In patients that completed one visit and needed to start RRT, 47% started on a home modality or received a pre-emptive transplant (home hemodialysis 6%, peritoneal dialysis 38%, transplant 3%).

Conclusions

Results show almost 90% (TM 87%, FTF 95%) of the attendees could choose a modality after education. Home modality choices doubled. Patients were able to make an informed choice regardless of the modality of education.

What do the US advanced kidney disease patients want? Comprehensive pre-ESRD Patient Education (CPE) and choice of dialysis modality

Improvement in Home Dialysis (HoD) utilizations as a mean to improve the patient reported and health services outcomes, has been a long-held goal of the providers and healthcare system in United States. However, measures to improve HoD rates have yielded limited success so far. Lack of patient awareness of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and its management options, is one of the important barriers against patient adoption of HoD. Despite ample evidence that Comprehensive pre-ESERD Patient Education (CPE) improves patient awareness and informed HoD choice, use of CPE among US advanced CKD patients is low. Need for significant resources, lack of validated data showing unequivocal and reproducible benefits, and the lack of validated CPE protocols proven to have consistent efficacy in improving not only patient awareness but also HoD rates in US population, are major limitations deterring adoption of CPE in routine clinical practice. We recently demonstrated that if a structured, protocol based CPE is integrated within the routine nephrology care for patients with advanced CKD, it substantially improves informed HoD choice and utilizations. However, this requires establishing CPE resources within each nephrology practice. Efficacy of a stand-alone CPE model, independent of clinical care, has not been examined till date. In this report we report the efficacy of our structured CPE protocol, delivered outside the realm of routine nephrology care-as a stand-alone patient education program, in a geographically distant region, and show that: when provided opportunity for informed dialysis choice, a majority of advanced CKD patients in US would prefer HoD. We also show that initiating CPE leads to accelerated growth in HoD utilizations and reduces disparities in HoD utilizations, goals for system improvements. Finally, the reproducibility of our structured CPE protocol with consistent efficacy data suggest that initiating such programs at institutional levels has the potential to improve informed dialysis selection and HoD rates across any similar large healthcare institute within US.

Attitudes of nephrologists towards assisted home dialysis in Germany

BACKGROUND

Assisted home dialysis (AHD) is an option to combine the benefits of home dialysis therapy with the needs of dialysis patients who are unable to perform self-treatment at home. While this method is growing in many countries worldwide, no data so far are reported for Germany.

METHODS

A survey was designed to identify the barriers to the implementation of AHD with the focus on attitudes and beliefs concerning AHD. The survey was sent to all 2060 members of the Germany Society of Nephrology.

RESULTS

The response rate was 14% of nephrologists (n = 286), representing 24% of all German centres. AHD was regarded as a highly meaningful option (>90% of all responding nephrologists). Fifty-five percent of the centres practice AHD (preferred peritoneal dialysis). The number of treated patients on AHD was small (77% of the centres treat no more than 10 patients). The nephrologists in centres that performed AHD were of older age and the number of dialysis patients treated in these centres was greater. AHD was offered in 57% of centres at chronic kidney disease Stage 4. Inadequate conventional dialysis and patient's request were reasons for choosing AHD. Barriers for offering AHD were lack of reimbursement, shortage of staff, lack of expertise and lack of team motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

In the view of German nephrologists, AHD is a meaningful method to provide home dialysis care. Inadequate funding and a lack of qualified staff were identified as severe barriers to implementation of AHD. To overcome these barriers and to achieve a higher penetration of AHD, dedicated actions have to be considered. Further studies are needed to prove the AHD concept with regard to outcome effects and cost efficacy.

Dialysis Provision and Implications of Health Economics on Peritoneal Dialysis Utilization: A Review from a Malaysian Perspective

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is managed by either lifesaving hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) or a kidney transplant. In Malaysia, the prevalence of dialysis-treated ESRD patients has shown an exponential growth from 504 per million population (pmp) in 2005 to 1155 pmp in 2014. There were 1046 pmp patients on HD and 109 pmp patients on PD in 2014. Kidney transplants are limited due to lack of donors. Malaysia adopts public-private financing model for dialysis. Majority of HD patients were treated in the private sector but almost all PD patients were treated in government facilities. Inequality in access to dialysis is visible within geographical regions where majority of HD centres are scattered around developed areas. The expenditure on dialysis has been escalating in recent years but economic evaluations of dialysis modalities are scarce. Evidence shows that health policies and reimbursement strategies influence dialysis provision. Increased uptake of PD can produce significant economic benefits and improve patients' access to dialysis. As a result, some countries implemented a PD-First or Favored Policy to expand PD use. Thus, a current comparative costs analysis of dialysis is strongly recommended to assist decision-makers to establish a more equitable and economically sustainable dialysis provision in the future.

Effects of A Comprehensive Predialysis Education Program on the Home Dialysis Therapies: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Improvement in the rates of home dialysis has been a desirable but difficult-to-achieve target for United States nephrology. Provision of comprehensive predialysis education (CPE) in institutes with established home dialysis programs has been shown to facilitate a higher home dialysis choice amongst chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Unfortunately, limited data have shown the efficacy of such programs in the United States or in institutes with small home dialysis (HoD) programs.

Methods

We report the retrospective findings examining the efficacy of a CPE program in the early period after its establishment, with reference to its impact on the choice and growth of a small HoD program.

Results

Over the initial 22 months since its inception, 108 patients were enrolled in the CPE clinic. Seventy percent of patients receiving CPE chose HoD, of which 55% chose peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 15% chose home hemodialysis (HHD). Rates of HoD choice were similar across the spectrum of socio-economic variables. Of just over half (54.6%) of those choosing to return for more than 1 session, 25.3%, changed their modality preference after the first education session, and nearly all reached a final modality selection by the end of the third visit. Initiation of the CPE program resulted in a 216% growth in HoD census over the same period and resulted in near doubling of HoD prevalence to 38% of all dialysis patients.

Conclusions

Comprehensive patient education improves the choice and prevalence of HoD therapies. We further find that 3 sessions of CPE may provide needed resources for the large majority of subjects for adequate decision-making.

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.

Hemodialysis Hospitalizations and Readmissions: The Effects of Payment Reform

BACKGROUND

In 2004, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services changed reimbursement for physicians and advanced practitioners caring for patients receiving hemodialysis from a capitated to a tiered fee-for-service system, encouraging increased face-to-face visits. This early version of a pay-for-performance initiative targeted a care process: more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis. Although more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis are associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations, it is unknown whether encouraging more frequent visits through reimbursement policy also yielded these benefits.

STUDY DESIGN

We used a retrospective cohort interrupted time-series study design to examine whether the 2004 nephrologist reimbursement reform led to reduced hospitalizations and rehospitalizations. We also used published data to estimate a range of annual economic costs associated with more frequent visits.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries in the United States receiving hemodialysis in the 2 years prior to and following reimbursement reform.

PREDICTOR

The 2 years following nephrologist reimbursement reform.

OUTCOMES

Odds of hospitalization and 30-day hospital readmission for all causes and fluid overload; US dollars.

RESULTS

We found no significant change in all-cause hospitalization or rehospitalization and slight reductions in fluid overload hospitalization and rehospitalization following reimbursement reform; the estimated economic cost associated with additional visits ranged from $13 to $87 million per year, depending on who (physicians or advanced practitioners) spent additional time visiting patients and how much additional effort was involved.

LIMITATIONS

Due to limited information about how much additional time providers spent seeing patients after reimbursement reform, we could only examine a range of potential economic costs associated with the reform.

CONCLUSIONS

A Medicare reimbursement policy designed to encourage more frequent visits during outpatient hemodialysis may have been costly. The policy was associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations for fluid overload, but had no effect on all-cause hospitalizations or rehospitalizations.

Medication adherence in randomized controlled trials evaluating cardiovascular or mortality outcomes in dialysis patients: A systematic review

Background

Medication non-adherence is common among renal dialysis patients. High degrees of non-adherence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can lead to failure to detect a true treatment effect. Cardio-protective pharmacological interventions have shown no consistent benefit in RCTs involving dialysis patients. Whether non-adherence contributes to this lack of efficacy is unknown. We aimed to investigate how medication adherence and drug discontinuation were assessed, reported and addressed in RCTs, evaluating cardiovascular or mortality outcomes in dialysis patients.

Methods

Electronic database searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE & Cochrane CENTRAL for RCTs published between 2005–2015, evaluating self-administered medications, in adult dialysis patients, which reported clinical cardiovascular or mortality endpoints, as primary or secondary outcomes. Study characteristics, outcomes, methods of measuring and reporting adherence, and data on study drug discontinuation were analyzed.

Results

Of the 642 RCTs in dialysis patients, 22 trials (12 placebo controlled), which included 19,322 patients, were eligible. The trialed pharmacological interventions included anti-hypertensives, phosphate binders, lipid-lowering therapy, cardio-vascular medications, homocysteine lowering therapy, fish oil and calcimimetics. Medication adherence was reported in five trials with a mean of 81% (range: 65–92%) in the intervention arm and 84.5% (range: 82–87%) in the control arm. All the trials that reported adherence yielded negative study outcomes for the intervention. Study-drug discontinuation was reported in 21 trials (mean 33.2%; 95% CI, 22.0 to 44.5, in intervention and 28.8%; 95% CI, 16.8 to 40.8, in control). Trials with more than 20% study drug discontinuation, more often yielded negative study outcomes (p = 0.018). Non-adherence was included as a contributor to drug discontinuation in some studies, but the causes of discontinuation were not reported consistently between studies, and non-adherence was listed under different categories, thereby potentiating the misclassification of adherence.

Conclusions

Reporting of medication adherence and study-drug discontinuation in RCTs investigating cardiovascular or mortality endpoints in dialysis patients are inconsistent, making it difficult to compare studies and evaluate their impact on outcomes. Recommendations for consistent reporting of non-adherence and causes of drug discontinuation in RCTs will therefore help to assess their impact on clinical outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-017-0449-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The global pediatric nephrology workforce: a survey of the International Pediatric Nephrology Association

BACKGROUND

The global pediatric nephrology workforce is poorly characterized. The objectives of our study were to assess pediatric nephrologists' perceptions of the adequacy of the pediatric nephrology workforce, and understand regional challenges to fellow recruitment and job acquisition. Perceptions regarding optimal length of training and research requirements were also queried.

METHODS

A 17-question web-based survey comprised of 14 close-ended and 3 open-ended questions was e-mailed to members of the International Pediatric Nephrology Association. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We received 341 responses from members of the International Pediatric Nephrology Association from 71 countries. There was a high degree of overall perceived workforce inadequacy with 67 % of all respondents reporting some degree of shortage. Perceived workforce shortage ranged from 20 % in Australia/New Zealand to 100 % in Africa. Respondents from Africa (25 %) and North America (22.4 %) reported the greatest difficulty recruiting fellows. Respondents from Australia/New Zealand (53.3 %) and Latin America (31.3 %) reported the greatest perceived difficulty finding jobs as pediatric nephrologists after training. Low trainee interest, low salary, lack of government or institutional support, and few available jobs in pediatric nephrology were the most frequently reported obstacles to fellow recruitment and job availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Globally, there is a high level of perceived inadequacy in the pediatric nephrology workforce. Regional variability exists in perceived workforce adequacy, ease of recruitment, and job acquisition. Interventions to improve recruitment targeted to specific regional barriers are suggested.

The Cost Effectiveness of High-Dose versus Conventional Haemodialysis: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is fatal if untreated. In the absence of transplant, approximately 50 % of dialysis patients die within 5 years. Although more frequent and/or longer haemodialysis (high-dose HD) improves survival, this regimen may add to the burden on dialysis services and healthcare costs. This systematic review summarised the cost effectiveness of high-dose HD compared with conventional HD.

METHODS

English language publications reporting the cost-utility/effectiveness of high-dose HD in adults with ESRD were identified via a search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Publications comparing any form of high-dose HD with conventional HD were reviewed.

RESULTS

Seven publications (published between 2003 and 2014) reporting cost-utility analyses from the public healthcare payer perspective were identified. High-dose HD in-centre was compared with in-centre conventional HD in one US model; all other analyses (UK, Canada) compared high-dose HD at home with in-centre conventional HD (n = 5) or in-centre/home conventional HD (n = 1). The time horizon varied from one year to lifetime. Similar survival for high-dose HD and conventional HD was assumed, with the impact of higher survival only assessed in the sensitivity analyses of three models. High-dose HD at home was found to be cost effective compared with conventional HD in all six analyses. The analysis comparing high-dose HD in-centre with conventional in-centre HD produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio generally acceptable for the USA, but not for Europe, Canada or Australia.

CONCLUSION

High-dose HD can be cost effective when performed at home. Future analyses assuming survival benefits for high-dose HD compared with conventional HD are needed.

Elderly Peritoneal Dialysis Compared with Elderly Hemodialysis Patients and Younger Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: Competing Risk Analysis of a Korean Prospective Cohort Study

The outcomes of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in elderly patients have not been thoroughly investigated. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes and risk factors associated with PD in elderly patients. We conducted a prospective observational nationwide adult end-stage renal disease (ESRD) cohort study in Korea from August 2008 to March 2013. Among incident patients (n = 830), patient and technical survival rate, quality of life, and Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI) scores of elderly PD patients (≥65 years, n = 95) were compared with those of PD patients aged ≤49 years (n = 205) and 50~64 years (n = 192); and elderly hemodialysis (HD) patients (n = 315). The patient death and technical failure were analyzed by cumulative incidence function. Competing risk regressions were used to assess the risk factors for survival. The patient survival rate of elderly PD patients was inferior to that of younger PD patients (P<0.001). However, the technical survival rate was similar (P = 0.097). Compared with elderly HD patients, the patient survival rate did not differ according to dialysis modality (P = 0.987). Elderly PD patients showed significant improvement in the BDI scores, as compared with the PD patients aged ≤49 years (P = 0.003). Low albumin, diabetes and low residual renal function were significant risk factors for the PD patient survival; and peritonitis was a significant risk factor for technical survival. Furthermore, low albumin and hospitalization were significant risk factors of patient survival among the elderly. The overall outcomes were similar between elderly PD and HD patients. PD showed the benefit in BDI and quality of life in the elderly. Additionally, the technical survival rate of elderly PD patients was similar to that of younger PD patients. Taken together, PD may be a comparable modality for elderly ESRD patients.

An education initiative modifies opinions of hemodialysis nurses towards home dialysis

Background

It has been shown that in-center hemodialysis (HD) nurses prefer in-center HD for patients with certain characteristics; however it is not known if their opinions can be changed.

Objective

To determine if an education initiative modified the perceptions of in-center HD nurses towards home dialysis.

Design

Cross-sectional survey of in-center HD nurses before and after a three hour continuing nursing education (CNE) initiative. Content of the CNE initiative included a didactic review of benefits of home dialysis, common misconceptions about patient eligibility, cost comparisons of different modalities and a home dialysis patient testimonial video.

Setting

All in-center HD nurses (including those working in satellite dialysis units) affiliated with a single academic institution

Measurements

Survey themes included perceived barriers to home dialysis, preferred modality (home versus in-center HD), ideal modality distribution in the local program, awareness of home dialysis and patient education about home modalities.

Methods

Paired comparisons of responses before and after the CNE initiative.

Results

Of the 115 in-center HD nurses, 100 registered for the CNE initiative and 89 completed pre and post surveys (89% response rate). At baseline, in-center HD nurses perceived that impaired cognition, poor motor strength and poor visual acuity were barriers to peritoneal dialysis and home HD. In-center HD was preferred for availability of multidisciplinary care and medical personnel in case of catastrophic events. After the initiative, perceptions were more in favor of home dialysis for all patient characteristics, and most patient/system factors. Home dialysis was perceived to be underutilized both at baseline and after the initiative. Finally, in-center HD nurses were more aware of home dialysis, felt better informed about its benefits and were more comfortable teaching in-center HD patients about home modalities after the CNE session.

Limitations

Single-center study

Conclusions

CNE initiatives can modify the opinions of in-center HD nurses towards home modalities and should complement the multitude of strategies aimed at promoting home dialysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40697-015-0051-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients' and carers' experiences of interacting with home haemodialysis technology: implications for quality and safety

Background

Little is known about patients’ and carers’ experiences of interacting with home haemodialysis (HHD) technology, in terms of user experience, how the design of the technology supports safety and fits with home use, and how the broader context of service provision impacts on patients’ use of the technology.

Methods

Data were gathered through ethnographic observations and interviews with 19 patients and their carers associated with four different hospitals in the UK, using five different HHD machines. All patients were managing their condition successfully on HHD. Data were analysed qualitatively, focusing on themes of how individuals used the machines and how they managed their own safety.

Results

Findings are organised by three themes: learning to use the technology, usability of the technology, and managing safety during dialysis. Home patients want to live their lives fully, and value the freedom and autonomy that HHD gives them; they adapt use of the technology to their lives and their home context. They also consider the machines to be safe; nevertheless, most participants reported feeling scared and having to learn through mistakes in the early months of dialysing at home. Home care nurses and technicians provide invaluable support. Although participants reported on strategies for anticipating problems and keeping safe, perceived limitations of the technology and of the broader system of care led some to trade off safety against immediate quality of life.

Conclusions

Enhancing the quality and safety of the patient experience in HHD involves designing technology and the broader system of care to take account of how individuals manage their dialysis in the home. Possible design improvements to enhance the quality and safety of the patient experience include features to help patients manage their dialysis (e.g. providing timely reminders of next steps) and features to support communication between families and professionals (e.g. through remote monitoring).