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

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.

The Lack of a Standardized Definition of Chronic Dialysis Treatment in German Statutory Health Insurance Claims Data

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney failure (CKF) is often treated with dialysis, which is invasive and costly and carries major medical risks. The existing studies of patients with CKF requiring dialysis that are based on claims data from German statutory health insurance (SHI) carriers employ varying definitions of this entity, with unclear consequences for the resulting statistical estimates.

METHODS

We carried out a cohort study on four random samples, each consisting of 62 200 persons aged 70 or above, from among the insurees of the SHI AOK Nordost, with one sample for each of the years 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. The prevalence, incidence, mortality, and direct health care costs of CKF requiring dialysis were estimated and compared on the basis of four different definitions from literature and a new definition developed by the authors in reference to billing data.

RESULTS

The different definitions led to variation in 12-month prevalences (range: 0.33-0.61%) and 6-month incidences (0.058-0.100%). The percentage of patients with prior acute kidney injury (AKI) ranged from 27.6% to 61.8%. Among incident patients, three-month survival ranged from 70.2% to 88.1%, and six-month survival from 60.5% to 81.3%. In CKF patients without prior AKI, the survival curves differed less across definitions (80.2-91.8% at three months, 70.7-84.4% at six months). The monthly health care costs ranged from €6010 to €9606, with marked variability across definitions in the costs of inpatient and outpatient care.

CONCLUSION

The lack of a standardized definition of CKF requiring dialysis in German SHI claims data leads to variability in the estimated case numbers, mortality, and health care costs. These differences are most probably in part due to the variable inclusion of inpatients who received short-term dialysis after AKI.

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.

Center Hemodialysis Versus Peritoneal Dialysis: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Introduction Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is needed for patients with end-stage kidney disease. While it is clear that kidney transplantation remains the gold standard in KRT, data comparing the cost-utility of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) are scarce. No such analysis has been performed for German patients.  Methods We used aggregated data generated by the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) for quality of life and insurance claims to evaluate mortality and economic impact. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and cost-utility were calculated accordingly.  Results PD is superior to HD within all dimensions of the SF-36, both in terms of QALY and cost-utility. The difference in cost per QALY between the aggregated physical dimensions (€50,671.54 vs. €39,745.77) is greater than that of the aggregated mental dimensions (€31,638.75 vs. €25,287.63). However, there is considerable variability among patients.  Conclusion From a health-economic point of view, PD should be preferred over HD when deciding on the KRT modality for the patient. This is not reflected in current practice, though. However, interindividual differences and patient preferences should be considered in the decision.

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.

Water quality and adverse health effects on the hemodialysis patients: An overview

Hemodialysis is considered a treatment of choice for patients with renal failure worldwide, allowing the replacement of some kidney functions by diffusion and ultrafiltration processes. Over 4 million people require some form of renal replacement therapy, with hemodialysis being the most common. During the procedure, contaminants in the water and the resulting dialysate may pass into the patient's blood and lead to toxicity. Thus, the quality of the associated dialysis solutions is a critical issue. Accordingly, the discussion of the importance of a dialysis water delivery system controlled by current standards and recommendations, with efficient monitoring methods, disinfection systems, and chemical and microbiological analysis, is crucial for improving the health outcomes of these patients. The importance of treatment, monitoring, and regulation is emphasized by presenting several case studies concerning the contamination of hemodialysis water and the adverse effects on the respective patients.

The experience of shared decision-making for patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing haemodialysis and their families-A scoping review

AIM

To identify the experiences of shared decision-making (SDM) for adults with end-stage kidney disease undergoing haemodialysis (HD) and their family members.

DESIGN

A scoping literature review.

METHOD

A scoping literature review, using Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

Medline (OVID), EMBASE, CINAHL, Psych Info, ProQuest, Web of Science, Open grey and grey literature were searched covering years from January 2015 to July 2022. Empirical studies, unpublished thesis and studies in English were included. The scoping review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta analysis-scoping review extension (PRISMA-Scr).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the final review. While SDM is welcomed by people undergoing HD, their experience is often limited to treatment decisions, with little opportunity to revisit decisions previously made. The role of the family/caregivers as active participants in SDM requires recognition.

CONCLUSION

People with end-stage kidney disease undergoing HD do and want to participate in the process of SDM, on a wide range of topics, in addition to treatment. A strategy is needed to ensure that SDM interventions are successful in achieving patient-driven outcomes and enhancing their quality of life.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review highlights the experiences of people undergoing HD and their family/caregivers. There is a wide variety of clinical decisions requiring consideration for people undergoing HD, including considering the importance who should be involved in the decision-making processes and when decisions should occur. Further study to ensure nurses understand the importance, and influence of including family members in conversations on both SDM processes and outcomes is needed. There is a need for research from both patient and healthcare professional (HCP) perspectives to ensure that people feel supported and have their needs met in the SDM process.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Shared Decision Making Among Older Adults With Advanced CKD

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Older adults with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) face difficult decisions about dialysis initiation. Although shared decision making (SDM) can help align patient preferences and values with treatment options, the extent to which older patients with CKD experience SDM remains unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional analysis of patient surveys examining decisional readiness, treatment options education, care partner support, and SDM.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 70 years or older from Boston, Chicago, San Diego, or Portland (Maine) with nondialysis advanced CKD.

PREDICTORS

Decisional readiness factors, treatment options education, and care partner support.

OUTCOMES

Primary: SDM measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) instrument, with higher scores reflecting greater SDM. Exploratory: Factors associated with SDM.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

We used multivariable linear regression models to examine the associations between SDM and predictors, controlling for demographic and health factors.

RESULTS

Among 350 participants, mean age was 78 ± 6 years, 58% were male, 13% identified as Black, and 48% had diabetes. Mean SDM-Q-9 score was 52 ± 28. SDM item agreement ranged from 41% of participants agreeing that "my doctor and I selected a treatment option together" to 73% agreeing that "my doctor told me that there are different options for treating my medical condition." In multivariable analysis adjusted for demographic characteristics, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, and diabetes, being "well informed" and "very well informed" about kidney treatment options, having higher decisional certainty, and attendance at a kidney treatment options class were independently associated with higher SDM-Q-9 scores.

LIMITATIONS

The cross-sectional study design limits the ability to make temporal associations between SDM and the predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Many older patients with CKD do not experience SDM when making dialysis decisions, emphasizing the need for greater access to and delivery of education for individuals with advanced CKD.

Exploring the Key Factors of Shared Decision-Making Through an Influential Network Relation Map: The Orthopedic Nurse's Perspective

Background

Few studies have used quantitative methods to explore the key factors affecting shared decision-making (SDM) in nursing decision-making from the perspective of orthopedic nurses.

Purpose

To understand the intercorrelations among shared decision-making questionnaire–nurse (SDM-Q-NUR) factors and identify key factors for clinical nursing care decisions in orthopedics.

Methods

In May 2021, this study investigated the interdependence of the SDM-Q-NUR scale and developed an influential network-relation map (INRM) from the clinical experience of 13 trained orthopedic nurses using the Decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory method.

Results

The INRM results showed that the nine criteria corresponded to three stages: preparation, discussion, and decision. “I helped my patient or patient's family understand all the information” (C₅) and “I wanted to know from my patient or patient's family how they want to be involved in making the nursing care decision” (C₂) are the main key factors for the beginning of nursing decision. In the discussion and decision stages, the corresponding key factors are “I made it clear to my patient or patient's family that a nursing care decision needs to be made” (C₁) and “I asked my patient or patient's family which nursing care option they prefer” (C₆). The result's statistical significance confidence and gap error were 98.106% and 1.894%, respectively.

Conclusions

When making nursing decisions with patients, orthopedic nurses need to have detailed information about how patients are involved in SDM and all relevant information. Nurses should also inform patients and their families regarding the purpose of the discussion, namely, to help one understand the content, advantages, and disadvantages of the nursing care options, and finally, make a decision.