The Trauma of Dialysis Initiation

Addressing Housing Issues Among People With Kidney Disease: Importance, Challenges, and Recommendations

Kidney disease disproportionately impacts people with low socioeconomic status, and low socioeconomic status is associated with worse outcomes for people with kidney disease. Unstable housing, which includes housing insecurity and homelessness, is increasing due to rising housing costs. There is mounting evidence that unstable housing and other health-related social needs are partially driving worse outcomes for people with low socioeconomic status. In this perspective, we consider the challenges to addressing housing for people with kidney disease, such as difficulty with identification of those with unstable housing, strict eligibility criteria for housing support, inadequate supply of affordable housing, and flaws in communities' prioritization of affordable housing. We discuss ways to tailor management for people experiencing unstable housing with kidney disease, and the importance of addressing safety, trauma, and emotional concerns as a part of care. We identify opportunities for the nephrology community to surmount challenges through increased screening, investment in workforce dedicated to community resource navigation, advocacy for investment in affordable housing, restructuring of communities' prioritization of affordable housing, and conducting needed research. Identifying and addressing housing needs among people with kidney disease is critical to eliminating kidney health disparities.

Simulation-based learning in nephrology

Simulation is a technique to replace and amplify real experiences with guided ones that evoke or replicate substantial aspects of the real world in a fully interactive fashion. In nephrology (a particularly complex specialty), simulation can be used by patients, nurses, residents, and attending physicians alike. It allows one to learn techniques outside the stressful environment of care such as central venous catheter placement, arteriovenous fistula management, learning about peritoneal dialysis, or performing a kidney biopsy. Serious games and virtual reality are emerging methods that show promise. Simulation could also be important in relational aspects of working in a team or with the patient. The development of simulation as a teaching tool in nephrology allows for maintaining high-quality training for residents, tailored to their future practice, and minimizing risks for patients. Additionally, this education helps nephrologists maintain mastery of technical procedures, making the specialty attractive to younger generations. Unfortunately, the inclusion of simulation training programmes faces occasional logistical or funding limitations that universities must overcome with the assistance and innovation of teaching nephrologists. The impact of simulation-based teaching on clinical outcomes needs to be investigated in clinical studies.

Rate and reasons for peritoneal dialysis dropout following haemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis switch: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient experiences and survival outcomes can be influenced by the circumstances related to dialysis initiation and subsequent modality choices. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the rate and reasons for peritoneal dialysis (PD) dropout following haemodialysis (HD) to PD switch.

METHOD

This systematic review conducted searches in four databases, including Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (study ID: CRD42023405718). Outcomes included factors leading to the switch from HD to PD, the rate and reasons for PD dropout and mortality difference in two groups (PD first group versus HD to PD group). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist and the GRADE tool were used to assess quality.

RESULTS

4971 papers were detected, and 13 studies were included. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in PD dropout in the PD first group (OR: 0.81; 95%CI: 0.61, 1.09; I2 = 83%; P = 0.16), however, there was a statistically significant reduction in the rate of mortality (OR: 0.48; 95%CI: 0.25, 0.92; I2 = 73%; P = 0.03) compared to the HD to PD group. The primary reasons for HD to PD switch, included vascular access failure, patient preference, social issues, and cardiovascular disease. Causes for PD dropout differed between the two groups, but inadequate dialysis and peritonitis were the main reasons for PD dropout in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the PD first group, a previous HD history may not impact PD dropout rates for patients, but it could impact mortality in the HD to PD group. The reasons for PD dropout differed between the two groups, with no statistical differences. Psychosocial reasons for PD dropout are valuable to further research. Additionally, establishing a consensus on the definition of PD dropout is crucial for future studies.

Systems Innovations to Increase Home Dialysis Utilization

Globally, there is an interest to increase home dialysis utilization. The most recent United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data report that 13.3% of incident dialysis patients in the United States are started on home dialysis, while most patients continue to initiate KRT with in-center hemodialysis. To effect meaningful change, a multifaceted innovative approach will be needed to substantially increase the use of home dialysis. Patient and provider education is the first step to enhance home dialysis knowledge awareness. Ideally, one should maximize the number of patients with CKD stage 5 transitioning to home therapies. If this is not possible, infrastructures including transitional dialysis units and community dialysis houses may help patients increase self-care efficacy and eventually transition care to home. From a policy perspective, adopting a home dialysis preference mandate and providing financial support to recuperate increased costs for patients and providers have led to higher uptake in home dialysis. Finally, respite care and planned home-to-home transitions can reduce the incidence of transitioning to in-center hemodialysis. We speculate that an ecosystem of complementary system innovations is needed to cause a sufficient change in patient and provider behavior, which will ultimately modify overall home dialysis utilization.

Social and Behavioral Barriers to Effective Care During the Transition to End-Stage Kidney Care

Individuals living with CKD are disproportionately burdened by a multitude of adverse clinical and person-centered outcomes. When patients transition from advanced kidney disease to kidney failure, the psychosocial effects as well as social determinants of health challenges are magnified, making this a particularly difficult time for patients beginning kidney replacement therapy. The key social determinants of health challenges often include food and housing insecurity, poverty, unreliable transportation, low level education and/or health literacy, lack of language interpreters and culturally concordant educational materials, lack of health care insurance coverage, and mistrust of the health care system. Psychosocial and physical stressors, such as depression, anxiety, sexual dysfunction, sleep difficulty, fatigue, and pain, are often part of the illness burden among individuals living with CKD and can interact synergistically with the social challenges making the transition to kidney replacement therapy particularly challenging. To better support patients during this time, it is critical that social and structural determinants of health as well as mental health be assessed and if needs are identified, that services be provided.

Assessing the impact of transitional care units on dialysis patient outcomes: A multicenter, propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate predialysis care and education impacts the selection of a dialysis modality and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Transitional care units (TCUs) aim to meet the unmet educational needs of incident dialysis patients, but their impact beyond increasing home dialysis utilization has been incompletely characterized.

METHODS

This retrospective study included adults initiating in-center hemodialysis at a TCU, matched to controls (1:4) with no TCU history initiating in-center hemodialysis. Patients were followed for up to 14 months. TCUs are dedicated spaces where staff provide personalized education and as-needed adjustments to dialysis prescriptions. For many patients, therapy was initiated with four to five weekly dialysis sessions, with at least some sessions delivered by home dialysis machines. Outcomes included survival, first hospitalization, transplant waiting-list status, post-TCU dialysis modality, and vascular access type.

FINDINGS

The study included 724 patients initiating dialysis across 48 TCUs, with 2892 well-matched controls. At the end of 14 months, patients initiating dialysis in a TCU were significantly more likely to be referred and/or wait-listed for a kidney transplant than controls (57% vs. 42%; p < 0.0001). Initiation of dialysis at a TCU was also associated with significantly lower rates of receiving in-center hemodialysis at 14 months (74% vs. 90%; p < 0.0001) and higher rates of arteriovenous access (70% vs. 63%; p = 0.003). Although not statistically significant, TCU patients were more likely to survive and less likely to be hospitalized during follow-up than controls.

DISCUSSION

Although TCUs are sometimes viewed as only a means for enhancing utilization of home dialysis, patients attending TCUs exhibited more favorable outcomes across all endpoints. In addition to being 2.5-fold more likely to receive home dialysis, TCU patients were 42% more likely to be referred for transplantation. Our results support expanding utilization of TCUs for patients with inadequate predialysis support.

Can empathy be taught? A cross-sectional survey assessing training to deliver the diagnosis of end stage renal disease

Background

Receiving the diagnosis of kidney failure has a major impact on patients. Yet, the way in which this diagnosis should be delivered is not formally taught within our medical curriculum. To fill this gap we set up a training course of kidney failure diagnosis delivery for nephrology trainees since 2016. This study assessed the effectiveness of this educational intervention.

Methods

The primary outcome was change in the empathy score immediately after the training session and several months afterward, based on the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE). Self-reported change in clinical practice was also evaluated. As control groups, we assessed empathy levels in untrained nephrology trainees (n = 26) and senior nephrologists (n = 71). Later on (>6 months) we evaluated participants’ perception of changes in their clinical practice due to the training.

Results

Six training sessions permitted to train 46 trainees. Most respondents (76%) considered the training to have a durable effect on their clinical practice. Average empathy scores were not significantly different in pre-trained trainees (average JSPE: 103.7 ± 11.4), untrained trainees (102.8 ± 16.4; P = 0.81) and senior nephrologists (107.2 ± 13.6; P = 0.15). Participants’ empathy score significantly improved after the training session (112.8 ± 13.9; P = 0.003). This improvement was sustained several months afterwards (average JSPE 110.5 ± 10.8; P = 0.04).

Conclusion

A single 4-hour training session can have long lasting impact on empathy and clinical practice of participants. Willingness to listen, empathy and kindness are thought to be innate and instinctive skills, but they can be acquired and should be taught.

Patients' and family members' perspectives on arrhythmias and sudden death in dialysis: the HeartLink focus groups pilot study

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving dialysis face a high risk of cardiovascular disease, arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death. Few patients, however, are aware of this risk. Implantable cardiac monitors are currently available for clinical use and can continuously monitor cardiac rhythms without the need for transvenous leads. Our goal was to gauge patients' and family members' perceptions of these risks and to identify their concerns about cardiac monitors.

METHODS

Two 90-minute focus groups were conducted: one with patients receiving in-center hemodialysis and one with their family members. Trained moderators assessed: (1) knowledge of cardiovascular disease; (2) cardiovascular disease risk in dialysis; (3) risk of death due to cardiovascular disease; (4) best ways to convey this risk to patients/families; and (5) concerns about cardiac monitors. The sessions were audiotaped, transcribed, and independently analyzed by two reviewers to identify core themes. Emblematic quotations were chosen to illustrate the final themes.

RESULTS

Nine adult patients and three family members participated. Patients felt education was inadequate and had little knowledge of arrhythmias. Patients'/families' concerns regarding cardiac monitors were related to adverse effects, the notification process, and cosmetic effects. Patients/families felt that nephrologists, not dialysis staff, would be the best source for education.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary data from this small study population suggest that patients/families are not well aware of the high risk of arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death in dialysis. Further investigation is required to gauge this awareness among patients/families and to assess their impressions of implantable cardiac monitors for arrhythmia detection and management.

Challenges and Opportunities in Expanding Home Hemodialysis for 2025

The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative has set an aggressive target for home dialysis growth in the United States, and expanding both peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis (HHD) will be required. While there has been a growth in HHD across the United States in the last decade, its value in controlling specific risk factors has been underappreciated and as such its appropriate utilization has lagged. Repositioning how nephrologists incorporate HHD as a critical renal replacement therapy will require overcoming a number of barriers. Advancing education of both nephrology trainees and nephrologists in practice, along with increasing patient and family education on the benefits and requirements for HHD, is essential. Implementation of a transitional care unit design coupled with an intensive patient curriculum will increase patient awareness and comfort for HHD; patients on peritoneal dialysis reaching a modality transition point will benefit from Experience the Difference programs acclimating them to HHD. In addition, the potential link between HHD program size and patient outcomes will necessitate an increase in the size of the average HHD program to more consistently deliver quality dialysis results. Addressing the implications of the nursing shortage and need for designing in scope staffing models are necessary to safeguard HHD growth. Seemingly, certain government payment policy changes and physician documentation requirements deserve further examination. Future HHD innovations must result in decreasing the burden of care for HHD patients, optimize the level of device and biometric data flow, facilitate a more functional centralized patient management care approach, and leverage computerized clinical decision support for modality assignment.

Association of Primary Care Involvement with Death or Hospitalizations for Patients Starting Dialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

It is uncertain whether primary care physician continuity of care associates with a lower risk of death and hospitalization among patients transitioning to maintenance dialysis.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using provincial-linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, we conducted a population-based study of incident patients who initiated maintenance dialysis between 2005 and 2014 and survived for at least 90 days. We defined high primary care physician continuity as both a high usual provider of care index (where >75% of primary care physician visits occurred with the same primary care physician) in the 2 years before dialysis (an established measure of primary care physician continuity) and at least one visit with the same primary care physician in the 90 days after dialysis initiation. We used propensity scores to match a group of patients with high and low continuity so that indicators of baseline health were similar. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included all-cause and disease-specific hospitalizations during the 2 years after maintenance dialysis initiation.

RESULTS

We identified 19,099 eligible patients. There were 6612 patients with high primary care physician continuity, of whom 6391 (97%) were matched to 6391 patients with low primary care physician continuity. High primary care physician continuity was not associated with a lower risk of mortality (14.5 deaths per 100 person-years versus 15.2 deaths per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.02). There was no difference in the rate of all-cause hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.01), and high primary care physician continuity was not associated with a lower risk of any disease-specific hospitalization, except for those related to diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

High primary care physician continuity before and during the transition to maintenance dialysis was not associated with a lower risk of mortality or all-cause hospitalization.