Family Members' Understanding of the End-of-Life Wishes of People Undergoing Maintenance Dialysis

Perspectives on the optimal timing of advance care planning among Japanese patients undergoing dialysis and clinicians: a cross-sectional study

KEY MESSAGES

The majority of dialysis patients and clinicians favor early advance care planning in our sample. Yet, there is a disconnect: only 11% of patients discussed future care with their clinicians. Our findings indicate Japanese dialysis patients and clinicians support proactive advance care planning at or before dialysis initiation.

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the optimal timing of discussions about advance care planning among dialysis patients and clinicians engaged in dialysis care. We aimed to explore the preferred timing for advance care planning and assess actual participation in advance care planning among dialysis patients and their clinicians.

METHODS

A scenario-based survey on Japanese patients aged ≥65 years on dialysis and clinicians involved in their dialysis care was performed. Participants were asked if they would feel prepared to engage in advance care planning with their clinicians, offering a choice among four hypothetical stages within the illness trajectory, extending from the initiation of dialysis to a later phase characterized by the patient's extreme frailty.

RESULTS

Overall, 181 patients and 128 clinicians participated in the study. Among these, 131 (72%) patients, and 84 (66%) clinicians indicated that they would prefer to initiate advance care planning around the time of dialysis initiation. Only 20 patients (11%) indicated that they had participated in advance care planning with at least one clinician, including 11 (6%) who indicated that they had discussed their preferences around life-sustaining treatments and 8 (4%) who had discussed their preferences around dialysis continuation.

CONCLUSIONS

While fewer than 11% of patients undergoing dialysis and their clinicians enrolled in our study had participated in advance care planning, most indicated that they would be comfortable initiating the discussion around the time of dialysis initiation. These findings suggest untapped opportunities to engage patients in advance care planning early in the course of their dialysis.

Beyond Autonomy: Ethics of Decision Making About Treatments for Kidney Failure at the Extremes of Age

Decisions around initiating and forgoing treatments for kidney failure are complex, and contemporary approaches to medical decision making are designed to uphold patients' own preferences and values when there are multiple clinically reasonable treatment options. When patients do not have cognitive capacity to make their own decisions, these models can be adapted to support the previously expressed preferences of older adults and to promote open futures as autonomous persons for young children. Nonetheless, an autonomy-focused approach to decision making may not align with other overlapping values and needs of these groups. Dialysis profoundly shapes life experience. Values framing decisions about this treatment extend beyond independence and self-determination and vary between life stages. Patients at the extremes of age may place a strong emphasis on dignity, caring, nurturing, and joy. Models of decision making tailored to support an autonomous individual may also discount the role of family as not only surrogate decision makers but stakeholders whose lives and experience are interwoven with a patient's and will be shaped by their treatment decisions. These considerations underline a need to more flexibly incorporate a diversity of ethical frameworks to support medical decisions, especially for the very young and old, when facing complex medical decisions such as initiating or forgoing treatments for kidney failure.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

A Patient Decision Aid About Conservative Kidney Management in Advanced Kidney Disease: A Randomized Pilot Trial

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Available decision aids for patients about treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) often lack information on conservative kidney management (CKM). We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a decision aid on CKM among patients with advanced CKD and their family members.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized pilot trial.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged≥75 years with stage 4 or 5 CKD and their family members at 4 medical centers in the greater Seattle area between August 2020 and December 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Usual care with or without a decision aid on CKM.

OUTCOME

Acceptability was assessed by attrition rates between the initial study visit (T1) and the 3-month follow-up evaluation (T3). The primary outcome and measure of feasibility was the proportion of participants who discussed CKM with a health care provider between T1 and T3.

RESULTS

We randomized 92 patients of whom 86 (55.8% male; age 82±6 years; 82.6% White) completed T1-42 in the usual care arm and 44 in the usual care plus decision aid arm-and 56 family members of whom 53 (18.9% male; age 71±11 years; 86.8% White) completed T1-20 in usual care arm and 33 in the usual care plus decisions aid arm. The attrition rates were 21% versus 21% (P=1.0) for patients, and 10% versus 18% (P=0.46) for family members in the usual care versus usual care plus decisions aid arms. Receipt of the decision aid significantly increased discussion of CKM with a health care provider for patients (26.4% vs 3.0%, P=0.007) and family members (26.9% vs 0, P=0.02).

LIMITATIONS

Possible limited generalizability because participants were a relatively homogenous group. The decision aid focuses on CKM and may be less applicable to those with limited knowledge of kidney replacement therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

A CKM decision aid was feasible and acceptable, and increased discussion of this treatment option with health care providers. This aid may serve as a useful adjunct to the currently available educational tools on treatments for advanced CKD.

FUNDING

Grant from a not-for-profit entity (National Palliative Care Research Center).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT04919941.

Advocating for in-center hemodialysis patients via anonymous survey

We conducted an anonymous survey in 9 of our university affiliated outpatient dialysis units to address the concern that many in-center hemodialysis patients may not feel comfortable sharing their experiences. Major goals of this study: Investigating level of patient satisfaction with their care; Evaluating the subjective perception of the level of understanding of patients regarding pertinent issues of their disease and its management; Identifying potential avenues for care improvement. Survey was conducted in English, paper-based, with answer choices to individual questions for patient satisfaction and education graded using a 5-point Likert scale. Regarding potential areas of improvement, patients were asked to choose as many areas as deemed appropriate. To ensure anonymity, the completed surveys were folded and dropped into a box. Overall, 253 out of 516 (49%) screened patients were eligible and completed the survey. Patients expressed favorable responses regarding satisfaction (mean rating > 4 in each of 14 questions) and education (mean rating > 4 in 8 questions, > 3.5 in 2 questions) regarding hemodialysis. About 62% of overall study participants identified at least one area where they felt additional information would result in improvement of care. Our results indicate that patients undergoing outpatient hemodialysis were overall satisfied and had a good perceptive understanding about their health. Based on the patients' input, strategies focused on addressing pain and discomfort, privacy, providing information about palliative care/hospice, mental health resources, and the process of kidney transplantation may promote improvement in overall quality of care.

Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Go Wish Game: Thinking About Personal Values to Promote Advance Care Planning

Background: The Go Wish Game (GWG) is a practical tool developed to ease advance care planning (ACP) conversations regarding end-of-life (EOL) issues. The game consists of a guide and 35 cards to help persons think about their personal values and priorities in the context of care and to discuss and share those concerns with families and health care professionals (HPs). Objectives: To promote ACP conversations in the Italian context, we developed an Italian version of the GWG by linguistic translation and cultural adaptation. Design: Cross-cultural adaptation process developed by Beaton et al. Measurements: We started with a back-and-forth translation to guarantee linguistic appropriateness. A prefinal Italian version was developed and then qualitatively evaluated by two focus groups (FGs) to assess content validity and cultural appropriateness. Participants' suggestions were discussed by the research groups and included in the final Italian version. Data analysis: The FGs' transcripts were analyzed by thematic analysis. Sample: One FG included HPs potentially involved in ACP, the second FG involved representative from local patient associations (RLPAs) with chronic, degenerative, and potentially terminal disease. Participants were purposefully selected. The two FGs involved eight HPs and five RLPAs, respectively. Results: Fewer explicit statements concerning EOL choices and a broader emphasis on the role of HPs in this discussion characterized the prefinal version. Our analysis identified three themes and five subthemes: (1) improving translation: linguistic redefinition and practical clarification; (2) how to play the GWG: needs and suggestions; and (3) more than a game. Conclusion: The Italian version developed in this study presents several cultural peculiarities. The rigorous translation and cultural adaptation process applied can enrich the existing literature by spreading a practical tool for initiating ACP in other languages and cultures. Further studies are needed to evaluate this tool's effectiveness in supporting ACP and training HPs to promote the ACP process.