Older patients' experiences with a shared decision-making process on choosing dialysis or conservative care for advanced chronic kidney disease: a survey study

The Need for Culturally Tailored CKD Education in Older Latino Patients and Their Families

Older Latino adults (65+) comprise the fastest growing minoritized group among the older population in the US and experience a disproportionate burden of kidney failure as well as disparities in kidney care compared to non-Hispanic White individuals. Despite significant need and barriers uniquely faced by this population, few educational resources or decision aids are available to meet the language and cultural needs of Latino patients. Decision aids are designed to improve knowledge and empower individuals to engage in shared decision-making and have been shown to improve decisional quality and goal-concordant care among older patients with CKD. In this commentary, we examine the barriers faced by older Latino people with CKD who must make dialysis initiation decisions. We conclude that there is a need for culturally concordant decision aids tailored for older Latino patients with CKD to overcome barriers in access to care and improve patient-centered care for older Latino CKD patients.

The trajectory of functional status of patients with kidney failure choosing conservative kidney management

PURPOSE

In older patients with kidney failure (KF) starting dialysis, there is a high rate of functional decline. Not much is known about the functional trajectory of patients receiving conservative kidney management (CKM). Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess this functional trajectory and explore clinical parameters associated with functional decline.

METHODS

The functional trajectory of patients choosing CKM was evaluated using data from the Geriatric Assessment in Older Patients Starting Dialysis (GOLD) study, which included patients aged ≥ 65 years with KF at the moment of decision-making. Functional status was assessed using a combined score for activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (iADL) dependency at baseline and after six months of follow-up. Change in functional status was divided into improvement (gain of one or more domains in functional status), stable (no change), decline (loss of one or more domains in functional status), and death at follow-up. The association between functional status at baseline and functional decline after six months was assessed with chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. Furthermore, caregiver experiences were explored using self perceived pressure of informal care (SPPIC) at baseline and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Follow-up data were available for 86 patients. Mean age was 82 ± 6 years and 43% were women. At baseline, 12% of the patients were independent, 55% were mild/moderately dependent, and 34% severely dependent. After 6 months of follow-up, 9% of all patients had improved, 35% remained stable, 41% had declined, and 15% had died. No significant associations were found between baseline characteristics and the composite outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving CKM, functional decline and death are highly prevalent. No association was found between poor outcome ("decline/death") and different potential risk factors.

Nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment as decision-making tool in kidney failure

BACKGROUND

Dialysis might not benefit all older patients with kidney failure, particularly those with multimorbid conditions and frailty. Patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness of the presence of geriatric impairments could improve outcomes by tailoring treatment plans and decisions for individual patients.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment to fuel decision-making for treatment choices in older patients with kidney failure.

DESIGN

In an exploratory qualitative study using focus groups, participants discussed perspectives on the use and value of nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment for the decision-making process to start or forego dialysis.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS

Patients (n = 18) with kidney failure, caregivers (n = 4), and professionals (n = 25) were purposively sampled from 10 hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged that supported or impeded decision-making in kidney failure: (1) patient psycho-social situation; (2) patient-related factors on modality choice; (3) organisation of health care. Patients reported feeling vulnerable due to multiple chronic conditions, old age, experienced losses in life and their willingness to trade longevity for quality of life. Professionals recognised the added value of nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment in three major themes: (i) facilitating continual holistic assessment, (ii) filling the knowledge gap, and (iii) uncovering important patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment was perceived as a valuable tool to identify geriatric impairments in older patients with kidney failure. Integration of its outcomes can facilitate a more holistic approach to inform choices and decisions about kidney replacement therapy.

Older patients and dialysis shared decision-making. Insights from an ethnographic discourse analysis of interviews and clinical interactions

OBJECTIVE

To describe and analyse the perspectives and communication practices of kidney clinicians and older patients (aged 60 +) during collaborative education and decision-making about dialysis.

METHODS

This qualitative study drew on pluralistic data sources and analytical approaches investigating elicited semi-structured interviews (n = 31) with doctors (n = 8), nurses (n = 8) and patients (n = 15), combined with ethnographic observations, written artefacts and audio-recorded naturally-occurring interactions (n = 23, education sessions n = 4; consultations n = 19) in a tertiary Australian kidney outpatient clinic. Data were analysed for themes and linguistic discourse features.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified across all data sources: 1) lost opportunity in education; 2) persistent disease knowledge gaps; 3) putting up with dialysis; 4) perceived and real involvement in decision-making and 5) complex role of family as decision-making brokers.

CONCLUSION

As the first study to complement interviews with evidence from naturally-occurring kidney interactions, this study balances the perspectives of how older patients and their clinicians view chronic kidney disease education, with how decision-making about dialysis is reflected in practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study provides suggestions for contextualized, multi-perspectives formal and informal training for improving decision-making about dialysis, spanning from indications to boost communication efficiency, to reducing unexplained jargon, incorporating patient navigators and exploring different dialysis modalities.

Choosing conservative care in advanced chronic kidney disease: a scoping review of patients' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Conservative care (CC) is a viable treatment option for some patients with kidney failure. Choosing between dialysis and CC can be a complex decision in which involvement of patients is desirable. Gaining insight into the experiences and preferences of patients regarding this decision-making process is an important initial step to improve care. We aimed to identify what is known about the perspective of patients regarding decision-making when considering CC.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched on 23 February 2023 for qualitative and quantitative studies on patient-reported experiences on decision-making about CC. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Twenty articles were included. We identified three major themes: creating awareness about disease and treatment choice, decision support and motivation to choose CC. Patients were often not aware of the option to choose CC. Patients felt supported by their loved ones during the decision-making process, although they perceived they made the final decision to choose CC themselves. Some patients felt pressured by their healthcare professional to choose dialysis. Reported reasons to choose CC were maintaining quality of life, treatment burden of dialysis, cost and the desire not to be a burden to others. In general, patients were satisfied with their decision for CC.

CONCLUSIONS

By focussing on the perspective of patients, we identified a wide range of patient experiences and preferences regarding the decision-making process. These findings can help to improve the complex decision-making process between dialysis and CC and to provide patient-centred care.

Value of patient decision aids for shared decision-making in kidney failure

BACKGROUND

It is unknown how often Dutch patient decision aids are used during kidney failure treatment modality education and what their impact is on shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

We determined the use of Three Good Questions, 'Overviews of options', and Dutch Kidney Guide by kidney healthcare professionals. Also, we determined patient-experienced shared decision-making. Finally, we determined whether the experience of shared decision-making among patients changed after a training workshop for healthcare professionals.

DESIGN

Quality improvement study.

PARTICIPANTS

Healthcare professionals answered questionnaires regarding education/patient decision aids. Patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <20 mL/min/1.73 m2 completed shared decision-making questionnaires. Data were analysed with one-way analysis of variance and linear regression.

RESULTS

Of 117 healthcare professionals, 56% applied shared decision-making by discussing Three Good Questions (28%), 'Overviews of options' (31%-33%) and Kidney Guide (51%). Of 182 patients, 61%-85% was satisfied with their education. Of worst scoring hospitals regarding shared decision-making, only 50% used 'Overviews of options'/Kidney Guide. Of best scoring hospitals 100% used them, needed less conversations (p = 0.05), provided information about all treatment options and more often provided information at home. After the workshop, patients' shared decision-making scores remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of specifically developed patient decision aids during kidney failure treatment modality education is limited. Hospitals that did use them had higher shared decision-making scores. However, the degree of shared decision-making experienced by patients remained unchanged after healthcare professionals were trained on shared decision-making and the implementation of patient decision aids.

Factors that influence the selection of conservative management for end-stage renal disease - a systematic review

Background

Most patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are managed with dialysis and less commonly kidney transplantation. However, not all are suitable for or desire either of these renal replacement therapies. Conservative management (CM) is an option. However, the selection of CM is often not easy for patients and clinicians. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the key factors that influence the selection of CM for ESRD.

Methods

Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL Plus were systematically searched from inception to 10 September 2021. Titles/abstracts and full texts were independently screened by two reviewers. Reference lists of included articles were searched. An update search via PubMed was conducted on 10 August 2023. A narrative synthesis of review findings was conducted.

Results

At the end of the screening process, 15 qualitative and 8 survey articles were selected. Reference checking yielded no additional relevant studies. Main themes were: (i) Patient-specific factors; (ii) Clinician-specific factors; (iii) Organisational factors; and (iv) National and international factors. Patient-specific factors were awareness and perceptions of CM and dialysis, beliefs about survival, preferred treatment outcomes and influence of family/caregivers and clinicians. Clinician-specific factors included perceptions of CM as 'non-intervention', perceptions of clinician role in the decision-making process, and confidence and ability to initiate sensitive treatment discussions. Relationships with and involvement of other healthcare professionals, time constraints, and limited clinical guidance were also important factors.

Conclusions

An improvement in the provision of education regarding CM for patients, caregivers, and clinicians is essential. Robust studies are required to generate crucial evidence for the development of stronger recommendations and guidance for clinicians.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Shared decision making in chronic kidney disease: a qualitative study of the impact of communication practices on treatment decisions for older patients

BACKGROUND

Effective interpersonal communication is critical for shared decision-making (SDM). Previous SDM communication training in nephrology has lacked context-specific evidence from ethnographic analysis of SDM interactions with older patients considering treatment options of end stage kidney disease (ESKD). This study explores communication strategies in SDM discussions in nephrology, specifically focusing on older patients considering dialysis as kidney replacement therapy (KRT).

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study analysing naturally-occurring audio-recorded clinical interactions (n = 12) between Australian kidney doctors, patients aged 60+, and carers. Linguistic ethnography and qualitative socially-oriented functional approaches were used for analysis.

RESULTS

Two types of communication strategies emerged: (1) Managing and advancing treatment decisions: involving active checking of knowledge, clear explanations of options, and local issue resolution. (2) Pulling back: Deferring or delaying decisions through mixed messaging. Specifically for non-English speaking patients, pulling back was further characterised by communication challenges deferring decision-making including ineffective issue management, and reliance on family as interpreters. Age was not an explicit topic of discussion among participants when it came to making decisions about KRT but was highly relevant to treatment decision-making. Doctors appeared reluctant to broach non-dialysis conservative management, even when it appears clinically appropriate. Conservative care, an alternative to KRT suitable for older patients with co-morbidities, was only explicitly discussed when prompted by patients or carers.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight the impact of different communication strategies on SDM discussions in nephrology. This study calls for linguistic-informed contextualised communication training and provides foundational evidence for nephrology-specific communication skills training in SDM for KRT among older patients. There is urgent need for doctors to become confident and competent in discussing non-dialysis conservative management. Further international research should explore naturally-occurring SDM interactions in nephrology with other vulnerable groups to enhance evidence and training integration.

Characterising patients and clinician experiences in comprehensive conservative care for kidney failure in Northern Queensland

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive conservative care (CCC) is an emerging treatment option in kidney failure (KF), but its implementation has been restricted by a limited understanding of KF populations, outcomes and clinician experiences.

AIMS

This pilot study aimed to investigate the characteristics of patients who are opting for (CCC) in North Queensland, Australia. It also aimed to highlight clinician factors impacting treatment discussions.

METHODS

It was an observational study facilitated through an online cross-sectional survey to nephrologists, nephrology advanced trainees and nurse practitioners working across North Queensland.

RESULTS

Study participants disagreed with the statement that patients commencing dialysis are more likely to have cardiac co-morbidities (46.7%), diabetes (40.0%), stroke (60.0%), liver disease (60.0%), chronic lung disease (53.3%), cognitive impairment (60.0%) and use of mobility aids (80.0%) than those commencing CCC. Conversely, they agreed that patients commencing dialysis are more likely to be independent (66.7%) and living in their private residence (40.0%). The median frailty score in patients choosing dialysis was 3.0 (interquartile range (IQR) 2.8-3.3), while that of patients selecting CCC was 4.5 (IQR 3.8-7.0). Our participants were aware of at least one clinical prognostication tool, and the one most frequently used was the 'Surprise Question' (46.2%, n = 6). Overall, our participants demonstrated low confidence (median 8.0%, IQR 6.0-8.0%) in facilitating CCC discussions.

CONCLUSION

Patients who are highly co-morbid and frail and have functional impairment are suitable candidates for CCC. More focus needs to be placed on objective prognostication of patients and the upskilling of clinicians to advocate for, and deliver, CCC.

Kidney Clinicians' Perceptions of Challenges and Aspirations to Improve End-Of-Life Care Provision

Introduction

End-of-life care is an essential part of integrated kidney care. However, renal clinicians' experiences of care provision and perceptions of end-of-life care needs are limited. This study explored renal clinicians' experiences of providing end-of-life care and developed recommendations to improve experiences.

Methods

An exploratory qualitative study using semistructured focus groups and 1 interview was undertaken at 5 kidney services in Victoria, Australia. The transcripts were analyzed thematically.

Results

Between February and December 2017, 54 renal clinicians (21 doctors and 33 nurses) participated in the study. Clinicians reported multiple challenges of end-of-life care experiences resulting in compromised treatment planning and decision making and highlighted priorities to guide better care experiences. Challenges of providing end-of-life care were underpinned by mismatches in illness and treatment expectations, limited engagement in advance care planning, medical complexity, and differences between clinicians and patients in what constituted quality of life. These challenges were associated with compromised end-of-life care planning, which resulted in care experiences that were rushed with a prolonged treatment focus, risking limited preparation for death and moral distress. Clinicians aspired for positive end-of-life care experiences, including patient control and consensus in decision making, and a coordinated and collaborative approach across healthcare providers.

Conclusions

Renal clinicians highlighted multiple factors and circumstances which resulted in experiences of compromised end-of-life care for patients with kidney disease. To improve care experiences, clinician-directed priorities included more training and support to facilitate systematic and earlier discussions about illness expectations and end-of-life care planning and greater communication and collaboration across healthcare providers is required.

Patients' and healthcare professionals' perceived facilitators and barriers for shared decision-making for frail and elderly patients in perioperative care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) in perioperative care, is an organizational approach to instituting sharing of information and decision-making around surgery. It aims at enabling patient autonomy and patient-centered care. Frail and elderly patients suffering from multiple health conditions and increased surgical vulnerability might particularly benefit from SDM. However, little is known about the facilitators and barriers to implementing SDM in perioperative care for the specific needs of frail and elderly patients. Our objective is twofold: First, we aim at collecting, analyzing, categorizing, and communicating facilitators and barriers. Second, we aim at collecting and mapping conceptual approaches and methods employed in determining and analyzing these facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed studies. We employed a taxonomy which is based on the SPIDER framework and added the items general article information, stakeholder, barriers/facilitators, category, subcategory, and setting/contextual information. This taxonomy is based on preceding reviews. The scoping review is reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Based on the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, we screened 984 articles, identified, and reviewed 13 original studies.

RESULTS

Within this review, two primary facilitators concerning patients' willingness to participate in SDM emerged: Patients want to be informed on their medical condition and procedures. Patients prefer sharing decisions with healthcare professionals, compared to decision-making solely by patients or decision-making solely by healthcare professionals. Communication issues and asymmetric power relationships between patients and clinical healthcare professionals are barriers to SDM. Regarding the methodological approaches, the evaluation of the conceptual approaches demonstrates that the selected articles lack employing a distinct theoretical framework. Second, the selected studies mainly used surveys and interviews, observational studies, like ethnographic or video-based studies are absent.

CONCLUSION

Diverging findings perceived by patients or clinical healthcare professionals were identified. These imply that SDM research related to elderly and frail patients should become more encompassing by employing research that incorporates theory-based qualitative analysis, and observational studies of SDM consultations for understanding practices by patients and clinical healthcare professionals. Observational studies are particularly relevant as these were not conducted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/8fjnb/.

Disparities in dialysis modality decision-making using a social-ecological lens: a qualitative approach

BACKGROUND

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) may choose to undergo dialysis in-center or at home, but uptake of home dialysis in the US has been minimal despite its benefits over in-center dialysis. Factors that may have led patients to select home dialysis over in-center dialysis are poorly understood in the literature, and interventions to improve selection of home dialysis have focused on patient knowledge and shared decision-making processes between patients and providers. The purpose of this study was to explore micro- and macro-level factors surrounding dialysis modality decision-making among patients undergoing in-center and home dialysis, and explore what leads patients to select home dialysis over in-center dialysis.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in a dialysis clinic at a large Midwestern research hospital, from September 2019 to December 2020. Participants were 18 years or older, undergoing dialysis for ESKD, and had the cognitive ability to provide consent. Surveys assessing demographic and clinical information were administered to participants following their interviews.

RESULTS

Forty patients completed interviews and surveys (20 [50%] in-center dialysis, 17 [43%] female, mean [SD] age, 59 [15.99] years). Qualitative findings suggested that healthcare access and engagement before entering nephrology care, after entering nephrology care, and following dialysis initiation influenced patients' awareness regarding their kidney disease status, progression toward ESKD, and dialysis options. Potential modifiers of these outcomes include race, ethnicity, and language barriers. Most participants adopted a passive-approach during decision-making. Finally, fatigue, concerns regarding one's dialyzing schedule, and problems with fistula/catheter access sites contributed to overall satisfaction with one's dialysis modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings point to broader factors affecting dialysis selection, including healthcare access and racial/ethnic inequities. Providing dialysis information before entering nephrology and after dialysis initiation may improve patient agency in decision-making. Additional resources should be prioritized for patients of underrepresented backgrounds. Dialysis decision-making may be appropriately modeled under the social-ecological framework to inform future interventions.

Asking the right questions: towards a person-centered conception of shared decision-making regarding treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease in older patients

An increasing number of older patients have to decide on a treatment plan for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), involving dialysis or conservative care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended as the model for decision-making in such preference-sensitive decisions. The aim of SDM is to come to decisions that are consistent with the patient’s values and preferences and made by the patient and healthcare professional working together. In clinical practice, however, SDM appears to be not yet routine and needs further implementation. A shift from a biomedical to a person-centered conception might help to make the process more shared. Shared should, therefore, be interpreted as two persons bringing two perspectives to the table, that both need to be explored during the decision-making process. Starting from the patient’s perspective will enable to determine the mutual goals of care first and, subsequently, determine the best way for achieving those goals. To perform such SDM, the healthcare professional needs to become a skilled companion, being part of the patient’s relational context, and start asking the right questions about what matters to the patient as person. In this article, we describe the need for a person-centered conception of SDM for the setting of older patients with advanced CKD.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a treatment option for patients with kidney failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at comparing survival outcomes between dialysis and CC in studies where patients made an explicit treatment choice.

Methods

Five databases were systematically searched from origin through 25 February 2021 for studies comparing survival outcomes among patients choosing dialysis versus CC. Adjusted and unadjusted survival rates were extracted and meta-analysis performed where applicable. Risk of bias analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions.

Results

A total of 22 cohort studies were included covering 21 344 patients. Most studies were prone to selection bias and confounding. Patients opting for dialysis were generally younger and had fewer comorbid conditions, fewer functional impairments and less frailty than patients who chose CC. The unadjusted median survival from treatment decision or an estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m² ranged from 20 and 67 months for dialysis and 6 and 31 months for CC. Meta-analysis of 12 studies that provided adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality showed a pooled adjusted HR of 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.39–0.57) for patients choosing dialysis compared with CC. In subgroups of patients with older age or severe comorbidities, the reduction of mortality risk remained statistically significant, although analyses were unadjusted.

Conclusions

Patients opting for dialysis have an overall lower mortality risk compared with patients opting for CC. However, a high risk of bias and heterogeneous reporting preclude definitive conclusions and results cannot be translated to an individual level.

Treatment-related decisional conflict in pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients in Singapore: Prevalence and determinants

BACKGROUND

In advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), patients face complex decisions related to renal replacement modality that can cause decisional conflict and delay. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of severe decisional conflict across decision types and to identify the psychosocial and clinical factors associated with decisional conflict in this population.

DESIGN

Observational cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Patients with CKD in renal care were recruited. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), Functional, Communicative, and Critical Health Literacy (FCCHL), Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), and the Kidney-disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) questionnaires were used. Clinical data were obtained from medical records. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of severe decisional conflict (DCS score ≥ 37.5).

RESULTS

Participants (N = 190; response rate = 56.7%; mean age = 62.8 ± 10.8) reported moderate levels of decisional conflict (29.7 ± 14.5). The overall prevalence of severe decisional conflict was 27.5% (n = 46) with no significant differences across decision types (dialysis, modality, access). Ethnicity (Chinese), marital status (married), BIPQ treatment control, coherence, KDQOL staff encouragement, and all health literacy domains, except functional health literacy, were significant predictors of decisional conflict in the unadjusted models. In the multivariable model, only the health literacy domains of FCCHL Communicative, and HLQ Active Engagement remained significant.

CONCLUSION

Even after pre-dialysis education, many CKD patients in this study still report severe decisional conflict, with rates remaining substantial across decision junctures. The associations of decisional conflict and health literacy skills related to communication and engagement with healthcare providers indicate that more collaborative and patient-centric pre-dialysis programs may support patient activation and resolve decisional conflict.

Patient Decision Aid Development for Older Adults With End-Stage Kidney Disease in Singapore

Introduction

In managing end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), older adults face a decision regarding whether to undergo dialysis or manage symptoms through kidney supportive care (KSC). This article describes the development of a patient decision aid (PDA) that is designed specifically for older adults with ESKD.

Methods

The decision context of the PDA was to choose a treatment between hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and KSC. The development process used insights obtained from qualitative interviews with patients, informal caregivers, and health care providers. The PDA was then developed in English and Mandarin and was pilot-tested with patients, caregivers, and health care providers. We finalized the PDA based on feedback from pilot testing and performed a preliminary evaluation based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDASi v4.0) criteria.

Results

The final PDA consists of 2 booklets and a video. During pilot testing, patients and caregivers reported high levels of ease of understanding and usefulness with ≥92.5% providing agree/strongly agree responses for the "Content"-related criteria, and ≥75% providing agree/strongly agree responses for the "Development Process and Effectiveness"-related criteria. The final PDA met 10 of 12 IPDASi v4.0 criteria.

Conclusions

This PDA was found useful during pilot-testing. It will be used during renal counseling in Singapore to help older adults with ESKD and their caregivers make informed decisions on which treatment option is best for the patients.

Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Perspectives on Improving Information Delivery in Hemodialysis: A Qualitative Study

Background

Patients with kidney failure are exposed to a surfeit of new information about their disease and treatment, often resulting in ineffective communication between patients and providers. Improving the amount, timing, and individualization of information received has been identified as a priority in in-center hemodialysis care.

Objective

To describe and explicate patient, caregiver, and health care provider perspectives regarding challenges and solutions to information transfer in clinical hemodialysis care.

Design

In this multicenter qualitative study, we gathered perspectives of patients, their caregivers, and health care providers conducted through focus groups and interviews.

Setting

Five Canadian hemodialysis centers: Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Halifax.

Participants

English-speaking adults receiving in-center hemodialysis for longer than 6 months, their caregivers, and hemodialysis health care providers.

Methods

Between May 24, 2017, and August 16, 2018, data collected through focus groups and interviews with hemodialysis patients and their caregivers subsequently informed semi-structured interviews with health care providers. For this secondary analysis, data were analyzed through an inductive thematic analysis using grounded theory, to examine the data more deeply for overarching themes.

Results

Among 82 patients/caregivers and 31 healthcare providers, 6 main themes emerged. Themes identified from patients/caregivers were (1) overwhelmed at initiation of hemodialysis care, (2) need for peer support, and (3) improving comprehension of hemodialysis processes. Themes identified from providers were (1) time constraints with patients, (2) relevance of information provided, and (3) technological innovations to improve patient engagement.

Limitations

Findings were limited to Canadian context, English speakers, and individuals receiving hemodialysis in urban centers.

Conclusions

Participants identified challenges and potential solutions to improve the amount, timing, and individualization of information provided regarding in-center hemodialysis care, which included peer support, technological innovations, and improved knowledge translation activities. Findings may inform the development of interventions and strategies aimed at improving information delivery to facilitate patient-centered hemodialysis care.

Preferences for and Experiences of Shared and Informed Decision Making Among Patients Choosing Kidney Replacement Therapies in Nephrology Care

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can progress rapidly, and patients are often unprepared to make kidney failure treatment decisions. We aimed to better understand patients' preferences for and experiences of shared and informed decision making (SDM) regarding kidney replacement therapy before kidney failure.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adults receiving nephrology care at CKD clinics in rural Pennsylvania.

PREDICTORS

Estimated glomerular filtration rate, 2-year risk for kidney failure, duration and frequency of nephrology care, and preference for SDM.

OUTCOMES

Occurrence and extent of kidney replacement therapy discussions and participants' satisfaction with those discussions.

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Multivariable logistic regression to quantify associations between participants' characteristics and whether they had discussions.

RESULTS

The 447 study participants had a median age of 72 (IQR, 64-80) years and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate of 33 (SD, 12) mL/min/1.73 m2. Most (96%) were White, high school educated (67%), and retired (65%). Most (72%) participants preferred a shared approach to kidney treatment decision making, and only 35% discussed dialysis or transplantation with their kidney teams. Participants who had discussions (n = 158) were often completely satisfied (63%) but infrequently discussed potential treatment-related impacts on their lives. In multivariable analyses, those with a high risk for kidney failure within 2 years (OR, 3.24 [95% CI, 1.72-6.11]; P < 0.01), longer-term nephrology care (OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.05-1.20] per 1 additional year; P < 0.01), and more nephrology visits in the prior 2 years (OR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.20-1.51] per 1 additional visit; P < 0.01) had higher odds of having discussed dialysis or transplantation.

LIMITATIONS

Single health system study.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients preferred sharing CKD treatment decisions with their providers, but treatment discussions were infrequent and often did not address key treatment impacts. Longitudinal nephrology care and frequent visits may help ensure that patients have optimal SDM experiences.

Information about different treatment options and shared decision making in dialysis care - a retrospective survey among hemodialysis patients

Background

Hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) are equivalent treatment alternatives for patients with end stage renal disease. In Germany, there is a legal obligation to inform every patient about all treatment alternatives and their possible harms and benefits. However, there is a low utilization of PD. Therefore, the question arises, whether HD patients perceive that they were informed about different dialysis options. We further investigate, if personal characteristics of informed and non-informed patients vary, and if both groups experienced the decision for their dialysis treatment as shared decision making (SDM).

Methods

The database was a nationwide postal survey of 590 HD patients from two statutory health insurers in Germany. Participants were asked whether they have been informed about both dialysis options. A logistic regression model examines impact factors on this information. We investigate differences in the German version of the 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) between informed and non-informed patients with a multivariate linear regression model.

Results

56 % of the respondents reported they had been informed about different dialysis treatment options. Patients older than 65 had a 61 % lower chance than patients ≤ 65 for this information (p < 0.001). High educated patients had a 47 % higher chance for this information than patients with low education level (p = 0.030). Informed patients rated a higher SDM-Q-9 scores than non-informed patients (76.9 vs. 44.2; p < 0.001). Non-informed patients showed high values in those SDM-Q-9 items which had no regard to different treatment options.

Conclusions

A great proportion of HD patients – mostly elderly patients and patients with a low education level – did not perceive that they were informed about different dialysis options before dialysis was initiated. The current obligation to provide information about all treatment alternatives in Germany is a first step to assure the unselected access to different treatment options. But it has not reached routine application in health care yet. Information about different treatment options can pave the way for SDM. While SDM is considered to be a valuable tool in clinical medicine, there is still room for improvement for its successful implementation when it comes to decision making on different dialysis treatment options.

Trial registration

The MAU-PD study (Multidimensional analysis of causes for the low prevalence of ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Germany) is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register.

DRKS-ID: DRKS00012555

Link: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do.

Date of Registration in DRKS: 2018/01/04.

Integrating Conservative kidney management Options and advance care Planning Education (COPE) into routine CKD care: a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Predialysis education for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) typically focuses narrowly on haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis as future treatment options. However, patients who are older or seriously ill may not want to pursue dialysis and/or may not benefit from this treatment. Conservative kidney management, a reasonable alternative treatment, and advance care planning (ACP) are often left out of patient education and shared decision-making. In this study, we will pilot an educational intervention (Conservative Kidney Management Options and Advance Care Planning Education-COPE) to improve knowledge of conservative kidney management and ACP among patients with advanced CKD who are older and/or have poor functional status.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial at an academic centre in Philadelphia, PA. Eligible patients will have: age ≥70 years and/or poor functional status (as defined by Karnofsky Performance Index Score <70), advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate<20 mL/min/1.73 m²), prefer to speak English during clinical encounters and self-report as black or white race. Enrolled patients will be randomised 1:1, with stratification by race, to receive enhanced usual care or usual care and in-person education about conservative kidney management and ACP (COPE). The primary outcome is change in knowledge of CKM and ACP. We will also explore intervention feasibility and acceptability, change in communication of preferences and differences in the intervention's effects on knowledge and communication of preferences by race. We will assess outcomes at baseline, immediately post-education and at 2 and 12 weeks.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania. We will obtain written informed consent from all participants. The results from this work will be presented at academic conferences and disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT03229811.

Patient and Provider Decision-Making Experiences: A Qualitative Study

The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to explore patient and provider experiences in making health care decisions. A convenience sample of primary care patients and providers was engaged in face-to-face and telephone interviews, to elicit participants' experiences in making health care decisions. Three main themes were identified in the data: Involvement, including being in control and accepting responsibility; seeking and confirming Information; and establishing communication and negotiating trust in the patient-provider Relationship. Themes identified in the data describe the elements involved in health care decision-making, and depict the relationship between patient and provider as being central to the making of health care decisions. In addition, the subthemes of control and negotiation merit additional in-depth exploration to illuminate the implicit and explicit expressions of hierarchy in the patient-provider relationship, as this hierarchy appears to hinder efforts at sharing decisions in health care encounters.

Health-related quality of life and symptoms of conservative care versus dialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review

Background

Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a viable alternative to maintenance dialysis for selected older patients to treat end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). This systematic review compares both treatment pathways on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms, which are major outcomes for patients and clinicians when deciding on preferred treatment.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus and PsycINFO from inception to 1 October 2019 for studies comparing patient-reported HRQoL outcomes or symptoms between patients who chose either CC or dialysis for ESKD.

Results

Eleven observational cohort studies were identified comprising 1718 patients overall. There were no randomized controlled trials. Studies were susceptible to selection bias and confounding. In most studies, patients who chose CC were older and had more comorbidities and worse functional status than patients who chose dialysis. Results were broadly consistent across studies, despite considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Patient-reported physical health outcomes and symptoms appeared to be worse in patients who chose CC compared with patients who chose dialysis but had not yet started, but similar compared with patients on dialysis. Mental health outcomes were similar between patients who chose CC or dialysis, including before and after dialysis start. In patients who chose dialysis, the burden of kidney disease and impact on daily life increased after dialysis start.

Conclusions

The available data, while heterogeneous, suggest that in selected older patients, CC has the potential to achieve similar HRQoL and symptoms compared with a dialysis pathway. High-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm these provisional findings.