Caring for older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and considering their needs: a qualitative study

Decision-Making Engagement Preferences among Older Adults with CKD

Key Points

Clinicians’ uncertainty about the degree to which older patients prefer to engage in decision making remains a key barrier to shared decision making. Most older adults with advanced CKD preferred a collaborative or active role in decision making.

Background

Older adults with kidney failure face preference-sensitive decisions regarding dialysis initiation. Despite recommendations, few older patients with kidney failure experience shared decision making. Clinician uncertainty about the degree to which older patients prefer to engage in decision making remains a key barrier.

Methods

This study follows a mixed-methods explanatory, longitudinal, sequential design at four diverse US centers with patients (English-fluent, aged ≥70 years, CKD stages 4–5, nondialysis) from 2018 to 2020. Patient preferences for engagement in decision making were assessed using the Control Preferences Scale, reflecting the degree to which patients want to be involved in their decision making: active (the patient prefers to make the final decision), collaborative (the patient wants to share decision making with the clinician), or passive (the patient wants the clinician to make the final decision) roles. Semistructured interviews about engagement and decision making were conducted in two waves (2019, 2020) with purposively sampled patients and clinicians. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA were used for quantitative analyses; thematic and narrative analyses were used for qualitative data.

Results

Among 363 patient participants, mean age was 78±6 years, 42% were female, and 21% had a high school education or less. Control Preferences Scale responses reflected that patients preferred to engage actively (48%) or collaboratively (43%) versus passively (8%). Preferred roles remained stable at 3-month follow-up. Seventy-six participants completed interviews (45 patients, 31 clinicians). Four themes emerged: control preference roles reflect levels of decisional engagement; clinicians control information flow, especially about prognosis; adapting a clinical approach to patient preferred roles; and clinicians' responsiveness to patient preferred roles supports patients' satisfaction with shared decision making.

Conclusions

Most older adults with advanced CKD preferred a collaborative or active role in decision making. Appropriately matched information flow with patient preferences was critical for satisfaction with shared decision making.

Clinical Trial registry name and registration number:

Decision Aid for Renal Therapy (DART), NCT03522740 .

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.

Exploring Patient Needs and Preferences in CKD Education: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Key Points

This largest to date patient survey study explores what patients with kidney disease want to know about treatments, such as dialysis or conservative management. A surprising number of patients want extensive doctor-like education, but are willing to spend only several hours on education. Patients are notably open to online and digital educational modalities—technology may allow for individualized and ongoing patient education.

Background

Despite efforts to educate individuals with CKD and thereby improve outcomes, studies have shown that a significant number of patients still report poor CKD knowledge. Thus, understanding patient needs and preferences is crucial for the development and implementation of an effective CKD educational program.

Methods

A paper survey was distributed to patients with CKD 21 years and older at a tertiary care hospital's outpatient nephrology clinic in Rochester, NY. Data on patient demographics; print and technological literacies; and preferences regarding topics, instructors, class formats, session frequency, duration, and peer support were gathered.

Results

The mean age of 337 patients was 65 years (±12.33 years), and the self-identified races were American Indian or Alaska Native (<1%), Asian (3%), Black (12.17%), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (<1%), White (83%), and Other (2%). Most of the patients (69%) never needed help with health instructions, and 68% of patients used a smartphone or computer every day. Key topics identified by patients included the definitions of CKD, creatinine, and GFR and information on kidney diet. Seventy-three percent of patients desired more than basic CKD information, with one in five even wanting to know everything a doctor knows. Forty-six percent were willing to attend classes, and 33% preferred using digital (video, computer, or smartphone) modalities. Patients were willing to attend an average of 3.6 classes, and most preferred hour-long classes. Most of the patients (46%) preferred a doctor as the educator, and 53% expressed interest in connecting with fellow patients for peer support.

Conclusions

Most patients with CKD are interested in comprehensive education about their disease. This research may offer insights into the optimal content and delivery of CKD educational programs by elaborating on patients' needs and the integration of online modalities to deliver content. Future person-centered educational programs for people with CKD are needed.

"Systems seem to get in the way": a qualitative study exploring experiences of accessing and receiving support among informal caregivers of people living with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

The well-being of informal caregivers of people living with chronic kidney disease is influenced by their experiences with support, however, few studies have focused on exploring these experiences. This study aimed to explore informal caregivers' experiences accessing and receiving support while caring for someone living with chronic kidney disease.

METHODS

Informal caregivers of people living with chronic kidney disease (n = 13) in the United Kingdom were primarily recruited via community organisations and social media adverts to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interviews explored support needs, experiences of receiving support from different groups (e.g. healthcare professionals, family/friends), and barriers and facilitators to accessing support. Support was understood as including emotional, practical, and informational support. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were generated: (1) "Systems seem to get in the way" - challenges within support systems, illustrating the challenges informal caregivers encountered when navigating complex support systems; (2) Relying on yourself, describing how informal caregivers leveraged their existing skills and networks to access support independently, while recognising the limitations of having to rely on yourself to find support; and (3) Support systems can "take the pressure off", showing how support systems were able to help informal caregivers cope with the challenges they experienced if certain conditions were met.

CONCLUSIONS

In response to the challenges informal caregivers experienced when seeking support, improvements are needed to better consider informal caregiver needs within healthcare systems, and to develop interventions tailored to informal caregiver needs and context. Within the healthcare system, informal caregivers may benefit from system navigation support and better integration within healthcare teams to ensure their informational support needs are met. New interventions developed to support informal caregivers should fit within their existing support systems and incorporate the qualities of support, such as empathy, that were valued. Additionally, use of an equity framework and user-centered design approaches during intervention development could help ensure interventions are accessible and acceptable.

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.

Needs of multimorbid heart failure patients and their carers: a qualitative interview study and the creation of personas as a basis for a blended collaborative care intervention

Introduction

Involving patients and carers in the development of blended collaborative care (BCC) interventions for multimorbid heart failure (HF) patients is recommended but rarely practised, and research on the patient perspective is scarce. The aim of this study is to investigate patients' and carers' care-related needs and preferences to better customize a novel international BCC intervention.

Methods

A qualitative study design using framework analysis was employed. The study was performed in accordance with the EQUATOR standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR). Patients aged at least 65 years with HF and at least two other physical diseases as well as their carers completed semistructured interviews in Germany, Italy, and Denmark. Based on these interviews, personas (prototype profiles of patients and carers) were created.

Results

Data from interviews with 25 patients and 17 carers were analysed. Initially, seven country-specific personas were identified, which were iteratively narrowed down to a final set of 3 personas: (a) the one who needs and wants support, (b) the one who has accepted their situation with HF and reaches out when necessary, and (c) the one who feels neglected by the health care system. Carers identifying with the last persona showed high levels of psychological stress and a high need for support.

Discussion

This is the first international qualitative study on patients' and carers' needs regarding a BCC intervention using the creation of personas. Across three European countries, data from interviews were used to develop three contrasting personas. Instead of providing "one size fits all" interventions, the results indicate that BCC interventions should offer different approaches based on the needs of individual patients and carers. The personas will serve as a basis for the development of a novel BCC intervention as part of the EU project ESCAPE (Evaluation of a patient-centred biopSychosocial blended collaborative CAre Pathway for the treatment of multimorbid Elderly patients).

Exploring the health-related decision-making experiences of people with chronic kidney disease and their caregivers: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to explore the decision-making experience of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their caregivers.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study of the decision-making experiences of individuals with stage 3-end-stage CKD and their family caregivers. One-on-one, semistructured interviews were conducted using a guide developed and approved by a community advisory group. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: (1) decisions triggered by declining health and broad in scope, (2) challenges to decision-making and (3) factors influencing decision-making. Participants' experiences with health-related decision-making demonstrated that decisions were triggered when health declined. Yet, decisions that impact disease progression were being made in stage 3. Decision-making was made difficult due to lack of information, complex co-morbidities, and poor resource utilization. However, the structure and nature of the medical appointment, supportive caregivers, and resources served to remove challenges.

CONCLUSION

Decision-support interventions must train patients and caregivers to be empowered participants in answer-seeking behaviours upstream of advanced illness.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS

This work was conducted in full collaboration with a community advisory board consisting of patients with CKD, caregivers and clinicians. These members are noted in the acknowledgement section, and those who worked with the team to develop the interview guide, study protocols, and manuscript preparation are included as authors. As part of their role, advisory members met monthly, providing input on recruitment, study progress, inclusion of diverse voices and added relevance to study findings.

Comprehensive conservative care: what doctors say, what patients hear

The demographic evolution of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) has led to the advent of an alternative treatment option to kidney replacement therapy in the past couple of decades. The KDIGO controversies on Kidney Supportive Care called this approach "comprehensive conservative care" (CCC) and defined it as planned holistic patient-centered care for patients with CKD stage 5 that does not include dialysis. Although the benefit of this treatment option is now well-recognized, especially for the elderly, and comorbid and frail patients, its development remains limited in practice. While shared decision-making and advance care planning represent the cornerstones of the CCC approach, one of the main barriers in its development is the perfectible communication between nephrologists and patients, but also between all healthcare professionals involved in the care of advanced CKD patients. As a result, a significant gap has opened up between what doctors say and what patients hear. Indeed, although CCC is reported by nephrologists to be widely available in their facilities, few of their patients say that they have actually heard of it. The objectives of this review are to explore discrepancies between what doctors say and what patients hear, to identify the factors underlying this gap, and to formulate practical proposals for narrowing this gap in practice.

Conservative Kidney Management in Kidney Transplant Populations

Conservative kidney management (CKM) has been increasingly accepted as a therapeutic option for seriously ill patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. CKM is active medical management of advanced chronic kidney disease without dialysis, with a focus on delaying the worsening of kidney disease and minimizing symptom burden. CKM may be considered a suitable option for kidney transplant recipients with poorly functioning and declining allografts, defined as patients with low estimated glomerular filtration rate (<20 mL/min per 1.73 m2) who are approaching allograft failure. CKM may be a fitting option for transplant patients facing high morbidity and mortality with or without dialysis resumption, and it should be offered as a choice for this patient population. In this review, we describe clinical considerations in caring for patients with poorly functioning and declining kidney allografts, especially the unique decision-making process around kidney replacement therapies. We discuss ways to incorporate CKM as an option for these patients. We also discuss financial and policy considerations in providing CKM for this population. Patients with poorly functioning and declining kidney allografts should be supported throughout transitions of care by an interprofessional and multidisciplinary team attuned to their unique challenges. Further research on when, who, and how to integrate CKM into existing care structures for patients with poorly functioning and declining kidney allografts is needed.

A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Integrated Palliative Care and Nephrology Care

BACKGROUND

There has been a call by both patients and health professionals for the integration of palliative care with nephrology care, yet there is little evidence describing the effect of this approach. The objective of this paper is to report the feasibility and acceptability of a pilot randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of integrated palliative and nephrology care.

METHODS

English speaking patients with CKD stage 5 were randomized to monthly palliative care visits for 3 months in addition to their usual care, as compared with usual nephrology care. Feasibility of recruitment, retention, completion of intervention processes, and feedback on participation was measured. Other outcomes included differences in symptom burden change, measured by the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale-Renal, and change in quality of life, measured by the Kidney Disease Quality of Life questionnaire and completion of advance care planning documents.

RESULTS

Of the 67 patients approached, 45 (67%) provided informed consent. Of these, 27 patients completed the study (60%), and 14 (74%) of those in the intervention group completed all visits. We found small improvements in overall symptom burden (-2.92 versus 1.57) and physical symptom burden scores (-1.92 versus 1.79) in the intervention group. We did not see improvements in the quality-of-life scores, with the exception of the physical component score. The intervention group completed more advance care planning documents than controls (five health care proxy forms completed versus one, nine Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment forms versus none).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that pilot testing through a randomized controlled trial of an ambulatory integrated palliative and nephrology care clinical program was feasible and acceptable to participants. This intervention has the potential to improve the disease experience for those with nondialysis CKD and should be tested in other CKD populations with longer follow-up.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

Pilot Randomized-controlled Trial of Integrated Palliative and Nephrology Care Versus Usual Nephrology Care, NCT04520984.

Video Images about Decisions for Ethical Outcomes in Kidney Disease (VIDEO-KD): the study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) often are inadequately prepared to make informed decisions about treatments including dialysis and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Further, evidence shows that patients with advanced CKD do not commonly engage in advance care planning (ACP), may suffer from poor quality of life, and may be exposed to end-of-life care that is not concordant with their goals. We aim to study the effectiveness of a video intervention on ACP, treatment preferences and other patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Video Images about Decisions for Ethical Outcomes in Kidney Disease trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial that will test the effectiveness of an intervention that includes a CKD-related video decision aid followed by recording personal video declarations about goals of care and treatment preferences in older adults with advancing CKD. We aim to enrol 600 patients over 5 years at 10 sites.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Regulatory and ethical aspects of this trial include a single Institutional Review Board mechanism for approval, data use agreements among sites, and a Data Safety and Monitoring Board. We intend to disseminate findings at national meetings and publish our results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04347629.

Advance Care Planning in Older Adults with CKD: Patient, Care Partner, and Clinician Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Older patients with advanced CKD are at high risk for serious complications and death, yet few discuss advance care planning (ACP) with their kidney clinicians. Examining barriers and facilitators to ACP among such patients might help identify patient-centered opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

In semistructured interviews in March through August 2019 with purposively sampled patients (aged ≥70 years, CKD stages 4-5, nondialysis), care partners, and clinicians at clinics in across the United States, participants described discussions, factors contributing to ACP completion or avoidance, and perceived value of ACP. We used thematic analysis to analyze data.

RESULTS

We conducted 68 semistructured interviews with 23 patients, 19 care partners, and 26 clinicians. Only seven of 26 (27%) clinicians routinely discussed ACP. About half of the patients had documented ACP, mostly outside the health care system. We found divergent ACP definitions and perspectives; kidney clinicians largely defined ACP as completion of formal documentation, whereas patients viewed it more holistically, wanting discussions about goals, prognosis, and disease trajectory. Clinicians avoided ACP with patients from minority groups, perceiving cultural or religious barriers. Four themes and subthemes informing variation in decisions to discuss ACP and approaches emerged: (1) role ambiguity and responsibility for ACP, (2) questioning the value of ACP, (3) confronting institutional barriers (time, training, reimbursement, and the electronic medical record, EMR), and (4) consequences of avoiding ACP (disparities in ACP access and overconfidence that patients' wishes are known).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients, care partners, and clinicians hold discordant views about the responsibility for discussing ACP and the scope for it. This presents critical barriers to the process, leaving ACP insufficiently discussed with older adults with advanced CKD.

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.

An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Patient and Caregiver Perspectives of Ambulatory Kidney Palliative Care

OBJECTIVES

The ideal clinical model to deliver palliative care to patients with advanced kidney disease is currently unknown. Internationally, ambulatory kidney palliative care clinics have emerged with positive outcomes, yet there is limited data from the United States (US). In this exploratory study we report perceptions of a US-based ambulatory kidney palliative care clinic from the perspective of patient and caregiver attendees. The objective of this study was to inform further improvement of our clinical program.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit the patient and caregiver experience. Eleven interviews (8 patients with chronic kidney disease stage IV or V and 3 caregivers) were analyzed using qualitative description design.

RESULTS

We identified 2 themes: "Communication addressing the emotional and physical aspects of disease" and "Filling gaps in care"; Subthemes include perceived value in symptom management, assistance with coping with disease, engagement in advance care planning, program satisfaction and patient activation.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Qualitative analysis showed that attendees of an ambulatory kidney palliative care clinic found the clinic enhanced the management of their kidney disease and provided services that filled current gaps in their care. Shared experiences highlight the significant challenges of life with kidney disease and the possible benefits of palliative care for this population. Further study to determine the optimal model of care for kidney palliative care is needed. Inclusion of the patient and caregiver perspective will be essential in this development.