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

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years for new treatments to move from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. Now is the time to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions are diagnosed worldwide, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because it is often silent in the early stages. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from the patient to the clinician to the health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the Gap in Kidney Care: Translating What We Know into What We Do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the Gap in Kidney Care: Translating What We Know Into What We do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary-care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Development and Validation of the Rating of CKD Knowledge Among Older Adults (Know-CKD) With Kidney Failure

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Few older adults with kidney failure engage in shared decision making (SDM) for kidney replacement therapy. The lack of instruments to assess SDM-relevant knowledge domains may contribute to this. We assessed the reliability and validity of a new instrument, the Rating of CKD Knowledge Older Adults (Know-CKD).

STUDY DESIGN

Multistage process, including a stakeholder-engaged development phase, pilot testing, and validation of a knowledge instrument using a cross-sectional survey of older adults with CKD.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

363 patients aged 70+years with nondialysis advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]<30mL/min/1.73m2) in Boston, Chicago, Portland, ME, and San Diego from June 2018 and January 2020.

EXPOSURE

Educational level, higher literacy (Single Item Literacy Screener [SILS]) and numeracy (Subjective Numeracy Scale [SNS]), having participated in clinic-sponsored dialysis education, and self-reported "feeling informed" about options for treatment.

OUTCOME

Validity and reliability of the Know-CKD instrument.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Reliability was assessed with the Kuder-Richardson-20 coefficient. Construct validity was demonstrated by testing a priori hypotheses using t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, and linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

The mean (± SD) participant age was 77.6±5.9 years, and mean eGFR was 22.7±7.2mL/min/1.73m2; 281 participants (78%) self-reported as White. The 12-item Know-CKD assessment had good reliability (Kuder-Richardson-20 reliability coefficient=0.75), and a mean score of 58.2% ± 22.3 SD. The subscales did not attain acceptable reliability. The proportion answering correctly on each item ranged from 20.1% to 91.7%. In examining construct validity, the hypothesized associations held; Know-CKD significantly associated with higher education (β=6.98 [95% CI, 1.34-12.61], P=0.02), health literacy (β = -12.67 [95% CI, -19.49 to-5.86], P≤0.001), numeracy per 10% higher (β=1.85 [95% CI, 1.02-2.69], P≤0.001), and attendance at dialysis class (β=18.28 [95% CI, 13.30-23.27], P≤0.001). These associations were also observed for the subscales except for prognosis (not associated with literacy or numeracy).

LIMITATIONS

Know-CKD is only available in English and has been used only in research settings.

CONCLUSIONS

For older adults facing dialysis initiation decisions, Know-CKD is a valid, reliable, and easy to administer measure of knowledge. Further research should examine the relationship of kidney disease knowledge and SDM, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes.

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The Rating of CKD Knowledge Among Older Adults (Know-CKD) study measures knowledge of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is designed for older adults. Most existing knowledge measures for CKD focus on people of all ages and all CKD stages. This measure is useful because it will allow researchers to assess how well patient education efforts are working. Patient education is a way to help patients make decisions about their care. We describe how the measure was developed by a team of doctors, researchers, and patients, and how the measure performed among persons with advanced CKD aged 70 years and older. Know-CKD can inform efforts to improve shared decision-making research and practice for older patients with kidney disease.

Shared decision making in elderly patients with kidney failure

'Elderly' is most commonly defined as an individual aged 65 years or older. However, this definition fails to account for the differences in genetics, lifestyle and overall health that contribute to significant heterogeneity among the elderly beyond chronological age. As the world population continues to age, the prevalence of chronic diseases, including chronic kidney disease (CKD), is increasing and CKD frequently progresses to kidney failure. Moreover, frailty represents a multidimensional clinical entity highly prevalent in this population, which needs to be adequately assessed to inform and support medical decisions. Selecting the optimal treatment pathway for the elderly and frail kidney failure population, be it haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or conservative kidney management, is complex because of the presence of comorbidities associated with low survival rates and impaired quality of life. Management of these patients should involve a multidisciplinary approach including doctors from various specialties, nurses, psychologists, dieticians and physiotherapists. Studies are mostly retrospective and observational, lacking adjustment for confounders or addressing selection and indication biases, making it difficult to use these data to guide treatment decisions. Throughout this review we discuss the difficulty of making a one-size-fits-all recommendation for the clinical needs of older patients with kidney failure. We advocate that a research agenda for optimization of the critical issues we present in this review be implemented. We recommend prospective studies that address these issues, and systematic reviews incorporating the complementary evidence of both observational and interventional studies. Furthermore, we strongly support a shared decision-making process matching evidence with patient preferences to ensure that individualized choices are made regarding dialysis vs conservative kidney management, dialysis modality and optimal vascular access.

Exploring health and disease concepts in healthcare practice: an empirical philosophy of medicine study

In line with recent proposals for experimental philosophy and philosophy of science in practice, we propose that the philosophy of medicine could benefit from incorporating empirical research, just as bioethics has. In this paper, we therefore take first steps towards the development of an empirical philosophy of medicine, that includes investigating practical and moral dimensions. This qualitative study gives insight into the views and experiences of a group of various medical professionals and patient representatives regarding the conceptualization of health and disease concepts in practice and the possible problems that surround them. This includes clinical, epistemological, and ethical issues. We have conducted qualitative interviews with a broad range of participants (n = 17), working in various health-related disciplines, fields and organizations. From the interviews, we highlight several different practical functions of definitions of health and disease. Furthermore, we discuss 5 types of problematic situations that emerged from the interviews and analyze the underlying conceptual issues. By providing theoretical frameworks and conceptual tools, and by suggesting conceptual changes or adaptations, philosophers might be able to help solve some of these problems. This empirical-philosophical study contributes to a more pragmatic way of understanding the relevance of conceptualizing health and disease by connecting the participants' views and experiences to the theoretical debate. Going back and forth between theory and practice will likely result in a more complex but hopefully also better and more fruitful understanding of health and disease concepts.

Getting to Know Your Patient: Content Analysis of Patients' Answers to a Questionnaire for Promoting Person-Centered Care

BACKGROUND

Person-centered care (PCC) encourages patients to actively participate in health care, thus facilitating care that fits the life of the patient. Therefore, health care professionals (HCPs) need to know the patient. As part of a broad policy for improving PCC, a digital questionnaire ("We would like to know you") consisting of 5 questions has previously been developed to help HCPs to get to know the patient with the help of patient and staff involvement.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the content and aims of the questionnaire to understand its potential and usability.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative, retrospective content analysis of patients' answers using NVivo Pro (QSR International). The questionnaire was used in the outpatient neuro-oncology department of a Dutch academic hospital.

RESULTS

Of 374 invited patients, 78 (20.9%) completed the questionnaire. We selected a sample of 42 (54%) of the 78 patients. Patients used a median of 16 (IQR 7-27) words per question, and most answers were easily interpretable. When asked about important activities, social activities, sports, or maintaining a normal life were most frequently mentioned. Patients wrote about fear of the disease, its possible influence on life, or fear of the future in general. Patients wanted HCPs to know about their care and communication preferences or shared personal information. They formulated expectations about effective treatment, communication, and the care process.

CONCLUSIONS

The questionnaire seems usable because patients provide interpretable answers that take little time to read, which HCPs can use to personalize care. Our study shows the potential of the questionnaire to help deliver PCC.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Views, attitudes, and reported practices of nephrology nurses regarding shared decision-making in end-of-life care

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is the final stage of chronic kidney disease. Yet dialysis is not suitable for all ESRD patients. Moreover, while shared decision-making (SDM) is the preferred model for making medical decisions, little is known about SDM between nephrology nurses and ESRD patients in Israel.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Assessing the views, attitudes, practices, and ethical dilemmas of nephrology nurses in Israel regarding SDM with ESRD patients.

METHODS

Using the descriptive quantitative approach, questionnaires were completed by 444 nephrology nurses in Israel. In addition to conducting descriptive statistics, t-tests for independent samples, f-tests for analysis of variance, and both tests for independence were also performed.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The research aims, expected advantages and risks have been explained to respondents before completing the questionnaire to secure informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the study. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Haifa (Approval # 411/21).

RESULTS

About one-third (30%-36.5%) of nurses reported discussing quality of life issues with ESRD patients, asking about their advance directives/power of attorney, exploring cultural/religious beliefs in end-of-life care, and ask about their preferred place of death. Nurses who convey high levels of patient-centered care (68.9%, p<0.0001), have high end-of-life training (76.2%, p<0.0001), and report cooperating with interdisciplinary teams (63.8%, p = 0.0415), also reported higher SDM practices than others. Nurses who refer less patients to palliative care (70%, p<0.0001) reported higher involvement in SDM compared to other nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrology nurses in Israel do not tend to implement the SDM model, despite its potential for improving quality of life for ESRD patients and their families and increasing conservative care options. Policy makers and educators in Israel should develop and implement training programs and support in the workplace, to enhance SDM between nephrology nurses and ESRD patients.

Shared decision making: a personal view from two kidney doctors and a patient

Shared decision making (SDM) combines the clinician's expertise in the treatment of disease with the patient's expertise in their lived experience and what is important to them. All decisions made in the care of patients with kidney disease can potentially be explored through SDM. Adoption of SDM in routine kidney care faces numerous institutional and practical barriers. Patients with chronic disease who have become accustomed to paternalistic care may need support to engage in SDM-even though most patients actively want more involvement in decisions about their care. Nephrologists often underestimate the risks and overestimate the benefits of investigations and treatments and often default to recommending burdensome treatments rather than discussing prognosis openly. Guideline bodies continue to issue recommendations written for healthcare professionals without providing patient decision aids. To mitigate health inequalities, care needs to be taken to provide SDM to all patients, not just the highly health-literate patients least likely to need additional support in decision making. Kidney doctors spend much of their time in the consulting room, and it is unjustifiable that so little attention is paid to the teaching, audit and maintenance of consultation skills. Writing letters to the patient to summarise the consultation rather than sending them a copy of a letter between health professionals sets the tone for a consultation in which the patient is an active partner. Adoption of SDM will require nephrologists to relinquish long-established paternalistic models of care and restructure care around the values and preferences of patients.

Renal Replacement Therapy For Elderly Patients with ESKD Through Shared Decision-Making

The incidence and prevalence of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in Korea are increasing, and ESKD constitutes a very important medical and social issue. Elderly dialysis patients have the highest risk of early mortality within 3 months after initiating dialysis, and geriatric syndromes such as aging, frailty, functional impairment, and cognitive impairment are crucial for the prognosis of elderly patients. Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach through which clinicians and patients can achieve informed preferences, thereby yielding better clinical outcomes and quality of life. Through SDM-based, close consultation among patients, families, and healthcare providers, an ESKD Life-Plan for elderly patients should be established. A multidisciplinary approach led by nephrologists can help them to provide proper vascular access for dialysis at the right time, with the right evidence, and to the right patient. Strategies that can improve peritoneal dialysis in elderly patients include assisted peritoneal dialysis, homecare support programs, and automated peritoneal dialysis. In order to enhance the role of kidney transplantation in elderly patients with ESKD, it is necessary to accurately identify patients' clinical conditions before transplantation and to perform active rehabilitation activities and postoperative management to promote recovery after transplantation. With the aging population and the increase in ESKD in the elderly, clinicians must identify factors affecting the mortality and quality of life of elderly dialysis patients.

Optimizing Multidisciplinary Care of Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD), a condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. As these patients have a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease and end-stage kidney disease, there is a need for early detection and early initiation of appropriate therapeutic interventions that slow disease progression and prevent adverse outcomes. Due to the complex nature of diabetes and CKD management, a holistic, patient-centered, collaborative care approach delivered by a coordinated multidisciplinary team (ideally including a clinical pharmacist as part of a comprehensive medication management program) is needed. In this review, we discuss the barriers to effective care, the current multidisciplinary approach used for CKD prevention and treatment, and the potential ways that the multidisciplinary management of CKD associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus can be refined to improve patient outcomes.

Advance Care Planning, Shared Decision Making, and Serious Illness Conversations in Onconephrology

Advance care planning, shared decision making, and serious illness conversations are communication processes designed to promote patient-centered care. In onconephrology, patients face a series of complex medical decisions regarding their care at the intersection of oncology and nephrology. Clinicians who aim to ensure that patient preferences and values are integrated into treatment planning must work within a similarly complex care team comprising multiple disciplines. In this review, we describe key decision points in a patient's care trajectory, as well as guidance on how and when to engage in advance care planning, shared decision making, and serious illness discussions. Further research on these processes in the complex context of onconephrology is needed.

The development and feasibility study of Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations at the outpatient clinic: the MUTUAL intervention

Background

Patients still receive non-beneficial treatments when nearing the end of life. Advance care planning (ACP) interventions have shown to positively influence compliance with end of life wishes. Hospital physicians seem to miss opportunities to engage in ACP, whereas patients visiting the outpatient clinic usually have one or more chronic conditions and are at risk for medical emergencies. So far, implemented ACP interventions have had limited impact. Structural implementation of ACP may be beneficial. We hypothesize that having ACP conversations more towards the end of life and involving the treating physician in the ACP conversation may help patient wishes and goals to become more concrete and more often documented, thus facilitating goal-concordant care.

Aim

To facilitate timely shared decision making and increase patient autonomy we aim to develop an ACP intervention at the outpatient clinic for frail patients and determine the feasibility of the intervention.

Methods

The United Kingdom’s Medical Research Council framework was used to structure the development of the ACP intervention. Key elements of the ACP intervention were determined by reviewing existing literature and an iterative process with stakeholders. The feasibility of the developed intervention was evaluated by a feasibility study of 20 ACP conversations at the geriatrics and pulmonology department of a non-academic hospital. Feasibility was assessed by analysing evaluation forms by patients, nurses and physicians and by evaluating with stakeholders. A general inductive approach was used for analysing comments. The developed intervention was described using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR).

Results

We developed a multidisciplinary timely undertaken ACP intervention at the outpatient clinic. Key components of the developed intervention consist of 1) timely patient selection 2) preparation of patient and healthcare professional 3) a scripted ACP conversation in a multidisciplinary setting and 4) documentation. 94.7% of the patients, 60.0% of the nurses and 68.8% of the physicians agreed that the benefits of the ACP conversation outweighed the potential burdens.

Conclusion

This study showed that the developed ACP intervention is feasible and considered valuable by patients and healthcare professionals.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-022-01005-3.