How the ESRD quality incentive program could potentially improve quality of life for patients on dialysis

Impact of virtual reality exercises on anxiety and depression in hemodialysis

Renal replacement therapy is associated with reduced physical activity. The aim of the study was to assess the relationship between regular physical activity performed with the use of virtual reality and the occurrence of symptoms of anxiety and depression in hemodialysis patients. The study involved 85 patients from the dialysis station at the Department of Nephrology, Transplantology and Internal Medicine PUM. The examined patients were randomly divided into study group and control group. The study group consisted of patients undergoing renal replacement therapy by hemodialysis, whose task was to perform VR exercises using the prototype of the NefroVR system for 20 min during hemodialysis. The control group consisted of patients undergoing renal replacement therapy by hemodialysis who were not assigned an intervention. An intragroup analysis was performed for the Beck and GAD scales. After the end of the exercise cycle in the study group there was a decrease in the score while in the control group there was an increase in comparison to the first result. The research showed that after a 3-month exercises on a bicycle with the use of low-intensity virtual reality, a decrease in depression symptoms measured by the Beck Depression Inventory was observed. The research showed that regular physical activity using virtual reality may be associated with a reduction in the occurrence of anxiety and depression symptoms in patients included in the chronic hemodialysis program.

Mortality Risk of Patients Treated in Dialysis Facilities with Payment Reductions under ESRD Quality Incentive Program

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program (ESRD QIP) measures quality of care delivered by dialysis facilities and imposes Medicare payment reductions for quality lapses. We assessed the association between payment reductions and patient mortality, a quality indicator not included in the ESRD QIP measure set.

METHODS

Association between mortality and ESRD QIP facility payment reduction based on the year of performance was expressed as the unadjusted rate and patient case-mix-adjusted hazard ratio. We also measured association between mortality and 1-year changes in payment reductions. Retrospective patient cohorts were defined by their treating dialysis facility on the first day of each year (2010-2018).

RESULTS

Facility performance resulted in payment reductions for 5%-42% of dialysis facilities over the 9 study years. Patients experienced progressively higher mortality at each payment reduction level. Across all years, unadjusted mortality was 17.3, 18.1, 18.9, 20.3, and 23.9 deaths per 100 patient-years for patients in facilities that received 0%, 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, and 2% payment reductions, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio showed a similar stepwise pattern by the level of payment reduction: 1.0 (reference), 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 1.09), 1.15 (95% CI, 1.13 to 1.16), 1.19 (95% CI, 1.16 to 1.21), and 1.34 (95% CI, 1.29 to 1.39). Strength of the association increased from 2010 to 2016. Patients treated in facilities that improved over 1 year generally experienced lower mortality; patients in facilities that performed worse on ESRD QIP measures generally experienced higher mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient mortality was associated with ESRD QIP facility payment reductions in dose-response and temporal patterns.

Hemodialysis facility star rating affects mortality in chronic hemodialysis patients: a longitudinal observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Many countries have their own hemodialysis (HD) quality assurance programs and star rating systems for HD facilities. However, the effects of HD quality assurance programs on patient mortality are not well understood. Therefore, in the present study, the effects of the Korean HD facility star rating on patient mortality in maintenance HD patients were evaluated.

METHODS

This longitudinal, observational cohort study included 35,271 patients receiving HD treatment from 741 facilities. The fivestar ratings of HD facilities were determined based on HD quality assessment data from 2015, which includes 12 quality measures in structural, procedural, and outcome domains. The patients were grouped into high (three to five stars) and low (one or two stars) groups based on HD facility star rating. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effects of star rating on patient mortality during the mean follow-up duration of 3 years.

RESULTS

The patient ratio between high and low HD facility star rating groups was 82.0% vs. 18.0%. The patients in the low star rating group showed lower single-pool Kt/V and higher calcium and phosphorus levels compared with subjects in the high star rating group. After adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical parameters, the HD facility star rating independently increased the mortality risk (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The HD facilities with low star rating showed higher patient mortality.

Update on Pediatric Hemodialysis Adequacy

The use of high reflux dialyzers to achieve a Kt/V_urea above 1.2 did not improve patient survival in most literature reports. After an electronic search in many sites, guidelines, systematic reviews, and review articles (cited references): We recommend (1) using the equilibrated double-pool, weekly rather than per session, Kt/V_urea, (2) Use of UF-dry weight to avoid V changes, (3) consider protein catabolic Rate (4) Use of double pool to avoid urea generation rebound effect. Beyond the urea model, other recommended parameters include the middle molecule clearance and patient clinical data as blood pressure control, normal ventricular morphology, and function, absence of anemia, bone mineral disease, vascular calcifications, good nutrition and growth, long-lasting vascular access, less intra-dialysis hypotension, fewer hospitalizations related to complications as infection, long-term patient survival with better life quality. All mentioned parameters are the good markers for adequate dialysis. Since (1) frequent short and (or) slow long dialysis sessions show better solute clearance and hemodynamic stability associated with better control of cardiovascular and bone disease, anemia, nutrition, and growth with better quality of life and survival. (2) The spare in the cost of the antihypertensive medications, erythroid-stimulating drugs, phosphate binders, and frequent hospitalization, compensates for the high dialysis cost. (3) The use of some advisable techniques can minimize access trauma; therefore, HD Model can be changeable according to each patient's clinical and biochemical follow-up dialysis adequacy progress pattern.

The Role of Kidney Supportive Care and Active Medical Management Without Dialysis in Supporting Well-Being in Kidney Care

People living with kidney failure often experience a higher symptom burden (including anxiety and depression) and lower quality of life than patients with other serious chronic diseases. The end of life for these patients is characterized by high intensity of treatment (such as intensive care unit stays) and lack of support for family. Kidney supportive care, which emphasizes quality of life, person-centered care, and holistic care for the person and their family, is an approach that improves well-being by aligning care with the patient's preferences and goals. Kidney supportive care encompasses identifying seriously ill patients, eliciting patient values and goals through shared decision making and advance care planning, assessing and managing symptoms, communicating prognosis, offering active medical management without dialysis, and planning and managing care transitions, especially at the end of life. Models, strategies, and tools for incorporating kidney supportive care and active medical management without dialysis into existing workflows are available. However, barriers to implementation in the United States include clinician knowledge gaps, current workflows, and financial incentives, which make it difficult to break from the de facto default practice of starting dialysis for patients with kidney failure regardless of age, frailty, or debilitating condition. Policy changes are needed to fully implement kidney supportive care in the United States.

Nephrologists' Attitudes Regarding Psychosocial Care in Hemodialysis Units

Background:

There is a high prevalence of psychosocial issues affecting patients with kidney failure.

Objective:

We sought to examine Canadian nephrologists’ attitudes and opinions regarding the importance of renal patient psychosocial care, nephrologists’ roles, and experience with psychosocial care in addition to what barriers, if any, prevent these physicians from providing psychosocial care to their patients.

Design:

A self-administered, survey questionnaire.

Setting:

Online.

Sample:

Canadian Society of Nephrology members who predominantly work in clinical care with adult, in-center hemodialysis patients.

Measurements:

Measurements of the survey include demographics, training, and nephrologists’ opinions regarding their role in administering psychosocial care, potential administrative and patient time constraints, accessibility of other health care workers for this activity, and factors that influence or impede physicians’ ability to address their patients’ psychosocial needs.

Methods:

A self-administered survey was sent to almost 500 members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology between November 2018 and December 2018. The survey questionnaire was designed to gather opinions and attitudes on psychosocial care delivery as well as potential influencing factors on nephrologists’ ability to provide this care. A univariate statistical analysis was used to analyze survey responses.

Results:

A total of 30 nephrologists responded to the survey, generating a 6% response rate. Respondents varied across provinces, with the majority being staff nephrologists (80%). While over 94% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that focus on psychosocial care improves patient outcomes, only 43% felt that staff nephrologists were suited to provide this care to patients; 97% of respondents believed social workers to be the most suited to provide this. Lack of additional supporting health care members, the need for additional training, too many administrative duties, and empathy fatigue were some of the predominant barriers respondents felt prevented them from addressing the psychosocial care of their patients.

Limitations:

A low response rate for the survey was obtained, roughly 6%, limiting our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Survey answers by respondents may be different from those by nonrespondents. Answers may be subject to social desirability and/or selection bias.

Conclusion:

Nephrologists believe that the current psychosocial care of patients in hemodialysis units is inadequate. However, further research is necessary to elucidate the barriers nephrologists face in providing psychosocial care and the changes required to most effectively implement optimal psychosocial care for patients with kidney failure in hemodialysis units.

Contributions of treatment centre and patient characteristics to patient-reported experience of haemodialysis: a national cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relative importance of patient and centre level factors in determining self-reported experience of care in patients with advanced kidney disease treated by maintenance haemodialysis (HD).

DESIGN

Analysis of data from a cross sectional national survey; the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) national Kidney patient-reported experience measure (PREM) survey (2018). Centre-level data were obtained from the UKRR report (2018).

SETTING

National survey of patients with advanced kidney disease receiving treatment with maintenance HD in UK renal centres in 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

The Kidney PREM was distributed to all UK renal centres by the UKRR in May 2018. Each centre invited patients receiving outpatient treatment for kidney disease to complete the PREM. These included patients with chronic kidney disease, those receiving dialysis-both HD and peritoneal dialysis, and those with a functioning kidney transplant. There were no formal inclusion/exclusion criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Kidney PREM has 38 questions in 13 subscales. Responses were captured using a 7-point Likert scale (never 1, always 7). The primary outcome of interest was the mean PREM score calculated across all questions. Multilevel modelling was used to determine the proportion of variation of the mean PREM score across centres due to patient-related and centre-related factors.

RESULTS

There were records for 8253 HD patients (61% men, 77% white) from 69 renal centres (9-710 patients per centre). There was significant variation in mean PREM score across centres (5.35-6.53). In the multivariable analysis there was some variation in relation to both patient- and centre-level factors but these contributed little to explaining the overall variation. However, multilevel modelling showed that the overwhelming proportion of the explained variance (45%) was explained by variation between centres (40%), only a small proportion of which is identified by measured factors. Only 5% of the variation was related to patient-level factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Centre rather than patient characteristics determine the experience of care of patients receiving HD. Further work is required to define the characteristics of the treating centre which determine patient experience.

Hemodialysis patients perceived exercise benefits and barriers: the association with health-related quality of life

BACKGROUND

Patients on hemodialysis have less exercise capacity and lower health-related quality of life than healthy individuals without chronic kidney disease (CKD). One of the factors that may influence exercise behavior among these patients is their perception of exercise benefits and barriers. The present study aimed to assess the perception of hemodialysis patients about exercise benefits and barriers and its association with patients' health-related quality of life.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 227 patients undergoing hemodialysis were randomly selected from two dialysis centers. Data collection was carried out using dialysis patient-perceived exercise benefits and barriers scale (DPEBBS) and kidney disease quality of life short form (KDQOL-SF). Data were analyzed using SPSS software ver. 21.

RESULTS

The mean score of DPEBBS was 68.2 ± 7.4 (range: 24 to 96) and the mean KDQOL score was 48.9 ± 23.3 (range: 0 to 100). Data analysis by Pearson correlation coefficient showed a positive and significant relationship between the mean scores of DPEBBS and the total score of KDQOL (r = 0.55, p < 0.001). Moreover, there was a positive relationship between the mean scores of DPEBBS and the mean score of all domains of KDQOL.

CONCLUSION

Although most of the patients undergoing hemodialysis had a positive perception of the exercise, the majority of them do not engage in exercise; it could be contributed to the barriers of exercise such as tiredness, muscle fatigue, and fear of arteriovenous fistula injury. Providing exercise facilities, encouraging the patients by the health care provider to engage in exercise programs, and incorporation of exercise professionals into hemodialysis centers could help the patients to engage in regular exercise.

Burden of Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease: Beyond Erythropoietin

Anemia is a frequent comorbidity of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is associated with a considerable burden because of decreased patient health-related quality of life and increased healthcare resource utilization. Based on observational data, anemia is associated with an increased risk of CKD progression, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The current standard of care includes oral or intravenous iron supplementation, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and red blood cell transfusion. However, each of these therapies has its own set of population-specific patient concerns, including increased risk of cardiovascular disease, thrombosis, and mortality. Patients receiving dialysis or those who have concurrent diabetes or high blood pressure may be at greater risk of developing these complications. In particular, treatment with high doses of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents has been associated with increased rates of hospitalization, cardiovascular events, and mortality. Resistance to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents remains a therapeutic challenge in a subset of patients. Hypoxia-inducible factor transcription factors, which regulate several genes involved in erythropoiesis and iron metabolism, can be stabilized by a new class of drugs that act as inhibitors of hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl-hydroxylase enzymes to promote erythropoiesis and elevate hemoglobin levels. Here, we review the burden of anemia of chronic kidney disease, the shortcomings of current standard of care, and the potential practical advantages of hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl-hydroxylase inhibitors in the treatment of patients with anemia of CKD.

Recommendations for Public Policy Changes to Improve Supportive Care for Seriously Ill Patients With Kidney Disease

National and international nephrology organizations have identified substantial unmet supportive care needs of patients with kidney disease and issued recommendations. In the United States, the most recent comprehensive effort to change kidney care, the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative, does not explicitly address supportive care needs, although it attempts to implement more patient-centered care. This Perspective from the leaders of the Coalition for Supportive Care of Kidney Patients advocates for urgent policy changes to improve patient-centered care and the quality of life of seriously ill patients with kidney disease. It argues for the provision of supportive care by an interdisciplinary team led by nephrology clinicians to improve shared decision-making, advance care planning, pain and symptom management, the explicit offering of active medical management without dialysis as an option for patients who may not benefit from dialysis, and the removal by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and all other payors of financial and regulatory disincentives to quality supportive care, including hospice, for patients with or approaching kidney failure. It also emphasizes that all educational and accreditation programs for nephrology clinicians include kidney supportive care and its essential role in the care of patients with kidney disease.

Analgesic Use in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Pain is common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Analgesics may be appropriate for some CKD patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of overall analgesic use and the use of different types of analgesics including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), adjuvants, and opioids in patients with CKD.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Interventional and observational studies presenting data from 2000 or later. Exclusion criteria included acute kidney injury or studies that limited the study population to a specific cause, symptom, and/or comorbidity.

PATIENTS

Adults with stage 3-5 CKD including dialysis patients and those managed conservatively without dialysis.

MEASUREMENTS

Data extracted included title, first author, design, country, year of data collection, publication year, mean age, stage of CKD, prevalence of analgesic use, and the types of analgesics prescribed.

METHODS

Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts, assessed potentially relevant articles, and extracted data. We estimated pooled prevalence of analgesic use and the I 2 statistic was computed to measure heterogeneity. Random-effects models were used to account for variations in study design and sample populations, and a double arcsine transformation of the prevalence variables was used to accommodate potential overweighting of studies with very large or very small prevalence measurements. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the magnitude of publication bias and assess possible sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included in the analysis. The prevalence of overall analgesic use in the random-effects model was 50.8%. The prevalence of acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and adjuvant use was 27.5%, 17.2%, and 23.4%, respectively, while the prevalence of opioid use was 23.8%. Due to the possibility of publication bias, the actual prevalence of acetaminophen use in patients with advanced CKD may be substantially lower than this meta-analysis indicates. A trim-and-fill analysis decreased the pooled prevalence estimate of acetaminophen use to 5.4%. The prevalence rate for opioid use was highly influenced by 2 large US studies. When these were removed, the estimated prevalence decreased to 17.3%.

LIMITATIONS

There was a lack of detailed information regarding the analgesic regimen (such as specific analgesics used within each class and inconsistent accounting for patients on multiple drugs and the use of over-the-counter analgesics such as acetaminophen and NSAIDs), patient characteristics, type of pain being treated, and the outcomes of treatment. Data on adjuvant use were very limited. These results, therefore, must be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

There was tremendous variability in the prescribing patterns of both nonopioid and opioid analgesics within and between countries suggesting widespread uncertainty about the optimal pharmacological approach to treating pain. Further research that incorporates robust reporting of analgesic regimens and links prescribing patterns to clinical outcomes is needed to guide optimal clinical practice.

Supporting quality care for ESRD patients: the social worker can help address barriers to advance care planning

BACKGROUND

Advance Care Planning (ACP) is essential for preparation for end-of-life. It is a means through which patients clarify their treatment wishes. ACP is a patient-centered, dynamic process involving patients, their families, and caregivers. It is designed to 1) clarify goals of care, 2) increase patient agency over their care and treatments, and 3) help prepare for death. ACP is an active process; the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) illness trajectory creates health circumstances that necessitate that caregivers assess and nurture patient readiness for ACP discussions. Effective ACP enhances patient engagement and quality of life resulting in better quality of care.

MAIN BODY

Despite these benefits, ACP is not consistently completed. Clinical, technical, and social barriers result in key challenges to quality care. First, ACP requires caregivers to have end-of-life conversations that they lack the training to perform and often find difficult. Second, electronic health record (EHR) tools do not enable the efficient exchange of requisite psychosocial information such as treatment burden, patient preferences, health beliefs, priorities, and understanding of prognosis. This results in a lack of information available to enable patients and their families to understand the impact of illness and treatment options. Third, culture plays a vital role in end-of-life conversations. Social barriers include circumstances when a patient's cultural beliefs or value system conflicts with the caregiver's beliefs. Caregivers describe this disconnect as a key barrier to ACP. Consistent ACP is integral to quality patient-centered care and social workers' training and clinical roles uniquely position them to support ACP.

CONCLUSION

In this debate, we detail the known barriers to completing ACP for ESRD patients, and we describe its benefits. We detail how social workers, in particular, can support health outcomes by promoting the health information exchange that occurs during these sensitive conversations with patients, their family, and care team members. We aim to inform clinical social workers of this opportunity to enhance quality care by engaging in ACP. We describe research to help further elucidate barriers, and how researchers and caregivers can design and deliver interventions that support ACP to address this persistent challenge to quality end-of-life care.

Measuring Quality in Kidney Care: An Evaluation of Existing Quality Metrics and Approach to Facilitating Improvements in Care Delivery

BACKGROUND

Leveraging quality metrics can be a powerful approach to identify substantial performance gaps in kidney disease care that affect patient outcomes. However, metrics must be meaningful, evidence-based, attributable, and feasible to improve care delivery. As members of the American Society of Nephrology Quality Committee, we evaluated existing kidney quality metrics and provide a framework for quality measurement to guide clinicians and policy makers.

METHODS

We compiled a comprehensive list of national kidney quality metrics from multiple established kidney and quality organizations. To assess the measures' validity, we conducted two rounds of structured metric evaluation, on the basis of the American College of Physicians criteria: importance, appropriate care, clinical evidence base, clarity of measure specifications, and feasibility and applicability.

RESULTS

We included 60 quality metrics, including seven for CKD prevention, two for slowing CKD progression, two for CKD management, one for advanced CKD and kidney replacement planning, 28 for dialysis management, 18 for broad measures, and two patient-reported outcome measures. We determined that on the basis of defined criteria, 29 (49%) of the metrics have high validity, 23 (38%) have medium validity, and eight (13%) have low validity.

CONCLUSIONS

We rated less than half of kidney disease quality metrics as highly valid; the others fell short because of unclear attribution, inadequate definitions and risk adjustment, or discordance with recent evidence. Nearly half of the metrics were related to dialysis management, compared with only one metric related to kidney replacement planning and two related to patient-reported outcomes. We advocate refining existing measures and developing new metrics that better reflect the spectrum of kidney care delivery.

Health-related quality of life on combination therapy with peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis in comparison with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: A cross-sectional study

Background:

The health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of dialysis patients has not been well examined, especially in combination therapy with peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis (PD+HD) patients. We compared the HRQOL of PD+HD patients with that of HD and PD patients.

Methods:

A multicenter, cross-sectional study was conducted on 36 PD+HD, 103 HD, and 90 PD patients in Japan who completed the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form 36, version 1.3. HRQOL scores were summarized into physical- (PCS), mental- (MCS), role/social- (RCS), and kidney disease component summaries (KDCS).

Results:

Of the PD+HD patients, 31 (86%) transferred from PD and 5 (14%) transferred from HD. They had the longest dialysis vintage and the smallest urine volume. PCS, MCS, and KDCS HRQOL scores of PD+HD patients were comparable with those of HD and PD patients. However, the RCS score for PD+HD was significantly higher than that for HD ( p = 0.020) and comparable with that for PD. PD+HD and PD were associated with significantly higher RCS scores than HD after adjusting for age, gender, diabetic nephropathy, dialysis vintage, ischemic heart disease, and peripheral arterial disease.

Conclusions:

For RCS, HRQOL in PD+HD patients was better than that in HD and comparable with that in PD patients, whereas the PCS, MCS, and KDCS HRQOL scores of PD+HD patients were comparable with those of HD and PD patients.

Incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into dialysis policy: Current initiatives, challenges, and opportunities

Governments at national and state levels regulate dialysis care in the United States to ensure safe practices, and continually elevate the quality of care. An objective of these regulatory policies is the independent evaluation of dialysis unit outcomes by patients, caregivers, and the community to facilitate choices as well as to advance equal access to high quality dialysis care. These polices recognized decades ago that it was fundamental to include the patient perspective in the assessment and evaluation of dialysis care quality by requiring both individual and aggregate patient reported outcomes (PROs). Although there is support for integrating the patient perspective, concerns persist about the implementation of these polices including selection of PRO measures, administration timing and reach, as well as interpretation of results including benchmarking to permit comparisons across organizations. The experience from the early adoption of PROs into dialysis policies in conjunction with advances in electronic health records, personal data capture and monitoring, and analytics is poised to address these concerns. The dialysis community has the opportunity to lead the way in innovation related to PRO implementation not only in kidney disease care, but also for other healthcare conditions or contexts such as oncology, surgical, and acute care.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adults With Kidney Disease: Current Measures, Ongoing Initiatives, and Future Opportunities for Incorporation Into Patient-Centered Kidney Care

Tools that measure patients' experiences and perceptions of disease are increasingly being recognized as important components of a multidisciplinary personalized approach to care. These patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have the ability to provide clinicians, researchers, and policymakers with valuable insights into patients' symptoms and experiences that are unable to be ascertained by laboratory markers alone. If developed rigorously, studied systematically, and used judiciously, PROMs can effectively incorporate the patient voice into clinical care, clinical trials, and health care policy. PROMs have continued to gain attention and interest within the nephrology community, but key challenges and opportunities for their seamless uptake and integration remain. In this narrative overview, we provide nephrologists with a comprehensive list of existing PROMs developed for adults with kidney disease with information on their gaps and limitations; a rationale to support the continued incorporation of PROMs into nephrology clinical trials, clinical care, and health care policy; and a summary of ongoing initiatives and future opportunities to do so.

Freestanding Dialysis Facility Quality Incentive Program Scores and Mortality Among Incident Dialysis Patients in the United States

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced the Quality Incentive Program (QIP) along with the bundled payment reform to improve the quality of dialysis care in the United States. The QIP has been criticized for using easily obtained laboratory indicators without patient-centered measures and for a lack of evidence for an association between QIP indicators and patient outcomes. This study examined the association between dialysis facility QIP performance scores and survival among patients after initiation of dialysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Study participants included 84,493 patients represented in the US Renal Disease System's patient-level data who had initiated dialysis between January 1, 2013, and December 1, 2013, and who did not, during the first 90 days after dialysis initiation, die, receive a transplant, or become lost to follow-up. Patients were followed up for the study outcome through March 31, 2014.

PREDICTOR

Dialysis facility QIP scores.

OUTCOME

Mortality.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Using a unique facility identifier, we linked Medicare freestanding dialysis facility data from 2015 with US Renal Disease System patient-level data. Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator was used to describe the survival of study participants. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the multivariable association between facility performance scores and patient survival.

RESULTS

Excluding patients who died during the first 90 days of dialysis, 11.8% of patients died during an average follow-up of 5 months. Facilities with QIP scores<45 (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.15-1.68) and 45 to<60 (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33) had higher patient mortality rates than facilities with scores≥90.

LIMITATIONS

Because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have revised QIP criteria each year, the findings may not relate to years other than those studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Dialysis facilities characterized by lower QIP scores were associated with higher rates of patient mortality. These findings need to be replicated to assess their consistency over time.

Integrating a Medical Home in an Outpatient Dialysis Setting: Effects on Health-Related Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Integrating primary care has been proposed to reduce fragmented care delivery for patients with complex medical needs. Because of their high rates of morbidity, healthcare use, and mortality, patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) may benefit from increased access to a primary care medical home.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of integrating a primary care medical home on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for patients with ESKD receiving chronic hemodialysis.

DESIGN

Before-after intervention trial with repeated measures at two Chicago dialysis centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients receiving hemodialysis at either of the two centers.

INTERVENTION

To the standard hemodialysis team (nephrologist, nurse, social worker, dietitian), we added a primary care physician, a pharmacist, a nurse coordinator, and a community health worker. The intervention took place from January 2015 through August 2016.

MAIN MEASURES

Health-related quality of life, using the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) measures.

KEY RESULTS

Of 247 eligible patients, 175 (71%) consented and participated; mean age was 54 years; 55% were men and 97% were African American or Hispanic. In regression analysis adjusted for individual visits with the medical home providers and other factors, there were significant improvements in four of five KDQOL domains: at 12 and 18 months, the Mental Component Score improved from baseline (adjusted mean 49.0) by 2.64 (p = 0.01) and 2.96 (p = 0.007) points, respectively. At 6 and 12 months, the Symptoms domain improved from baseline (adjusted mean = 77.0) by 2.61 (p = 0.02) and 2.35 points (p = 0.05) respectively. The Kidney Disease Effects domain improved from baseline (adjusted mean = 72.7), to 6, 12, and 18 months by 4.36 (p = 0.003), 6.95 (p < 0.0001), and 4.14 (p = 0.02) points respectively. The Physical Component Score improved at 6 months only.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating primary care and enhancing care coordination in two dialysis facilities was associated with improvements in HRQOL among patients with ESKD who required chronic hemodialysis.

Moderate Protein Restriction in Advanced CKD: A Feasible Option in An Elderly, High-Comorbidity Population. A Stepwise Multiple-Choice System Approach

Background: Protein restriction may retard the need for renal replacement therapy; compliance is considered a barrier, especially in elderly patients. Methods: A feasibility study was conducted in a newly organized unit for advanced kidney disease; three diet options were offered: normalization of protein intake (0.8 g/kg/day of protein); moderate protein restriction (0.6 g/kg/day of protein) with a “traditional” mixed protein diet or with a “plant-based” diet supplemented with ketoacids. Patients with protein energy wasting (PEW), short life expectancy or who refused were excluded. Compliance was estimated by Maroni-Mitch formula and food diary. Results: In November 2017–July 2018, 131 patients started the program: median age 74 years (min–max 24-101), Charlson Index (CCI): 8 (min-max: 2–14); eGFR 24 mL/min (4–68); 50.4% were diabetic, BMI was ≥ 30 kg/m² in 40.4%. Normalization was the first step in 75 patients (57%, age 78 (24–101), CCI 8 (2–12), eGFR 24 mL/min (8–68)); moderately protein-restricted traditional diets were chosen by 24 (18%, age 74 (44–91), CCI 8 (4–14), eGFR 22 mL/min (5–40)), plant-based diets by 22 (17%, age 70 (34–89), CCI 6.5 (2–12), eGFR 15 mL/min (5–46)) (p < 0.001). Protein restriction was not undertaken in 10 patients with short life expectancy. In patients with ≥ 3 months of follow-up, median reduction of protein intake was from 1.2 to 0.8 g/kg/day (p < 0.001); nutritional parameters remained stable; albumin increased from 3.5 to 3.6 g/dL (p = 0.037); good compliance was found in 74%, regardless of diets. Over 1067 patient-months of follow-up, 9 patients died (CCI 10 (6–12)), 7 started dialysis (5 incremental). Conclusion: Protein restriction is feasible by an individualized, stepwise approach in an overall elderly, high-comorbidity population with a baseline high-protein diet and is compatible with stable nutritional status.

Development of an International Standard Set of Value-Based Outcome Measures for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) CKD Working Group

Value-based health care is increasingly promoted as a strategy for improving care quality by benchmarking outcomes that matter to patients relative to the cost of obtaining those outcomes. To support the shift toward value-based health care in chronic kidney disease (CKD), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled an international working group of health professionals and patient representatives to develop a standardized minimum set of patient-centered outcomes targeted for clinical use. The considered outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were generated from systematic literature reviews. Feedback was sought from patients and health professionals. Patients with very high-risk CKD (stages G3a/A3 and G3b/A2-G5, including dialysis, kidney transplantation, and conservative care) were selected as the target population. Using an online modified Delphi process, outcomes important to all patients were selected, such as survival and hospitalization, and to treatment-specific subgroups, such as vascular access survival and kidney allograft survival. Patient-reported outcome measures were included to capture domains of health-related quality of life, which were rated as the most important outcomes by patients. Demographic and clinical variables were identified to be used as case-mix adjusters. Use of these consensus recommendations could enable institutions to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of their CKD care.

Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote quality of care in the management of patients with established kidney disease requiring treatment with haemodialysis in the UK (PROM-HD): a qualitative study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) for end-stage kidney disease often report a poor quality of life (QoL) and identify that improving QoL has a higher priority for them than improvements in long-term survival. Research suggests that regular collection and usage of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with chronic conditions may reduce hospitalisation, improve QoL and overall survival. In the UK, despite increased use within research settings, PROMs have not been introduced into the routine clinical care for patients undergoing HD.We report the protocol for 'Using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote quality of care in the management of patients with established kidney disease requiring treatment with haemodialysis in the UK-PROM-HD'. The study aim is to investigate the methodological basis for the use of routine PROMs assessment, particularly using electronic formats (ePROMs) within clinical and research settings, to maximise the potential of PROM use in the management of the care of this patient group.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project will use qualitative methodology to explore, by thematic analysis, the views, perceptions and experiences of patients receiving HD and members of the HD multidisciplinary team regarding the collection and use of PROMs in routine clinical care, particularly ePROMs. This will involve interviews with up to 30 patients or until saturation is achieved and three focus group sessions with approximately 18 members of the clinical team delivering care to this patient group, which will be interpreted broadly to include both professional and non-professional staff.

Residential Area Life Expectancy: Association With Outcomes and Processes of Care for Patients With ESRD in the United States

BACKGROUND

The effects of underlying noncodified risks are unclear on the prognosis of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We aimed to evaluate the association of residential area life expectancy with outcomes and processes of care for patients with ESRD in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with incident ESRD between 2006 and 2013 recorded in the US Renal Data System (n=606,046).

PREDICTOR

The primary exposure was life expectancy in the patient's residential county estimated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

OUTCOMES

Death, placement on the kidney transplant wait list, living and deceased donor kidney transplantation, and posttransplantation graft loss.

RESULTS

Median life expectancies of patients' residences were 75.6 (males) and 80.4 years (females). Compared to the highest life expectancy quintile and adjusted for demographic factors, disease cause, and multiple comorbid conditions, the lowest quintile had adjusted HRs for mortality of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.18-1.22); placement onto the waiting list, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.70); living donor transplantation, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.56); posttransplantation graft loss, 1.35 (95% CI, 1.27-1.43); and posttransplantation mortality, 1.29 (95% CI, 1.19-1.39). Patients living in areas with lower life expectancy were less likely to be informed about transplantation, be under the care of a nephrologist, or receive an arteriovenous fistula as the initial dialysis access. Results remained consistent with additional adjustment for zip code-level median income, population size, and urban-rural locality.

LIMITATIONS

Potential residual confounding and attribution of effects to individuals based on residential area-level data.

CONCLUSIONS

Residential area life expectancy, a proxy for socioeconomic, environmental, genetic, and behavioral factors, was independently associated with mortality and process-of-care measures for patients with ESRD. These results emphasize the underlying effect on health outcomes of the environment in which patients live, independent of patient-level factors. These findings may have implications for provider assessments.

Research Priorities for Palliative Care for Older Adults with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

Older adults with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) often have multiple comorbid conditions, a high symptom burden, and limited life expectancy. There is mounting concern that the intensive patterns of care that many of these patients receive at the end of life are discordant with their values and preferences. The nephrology community has recognized that there are significant unmet palliative care needs in this population. In this article, we identify three broad areas of knowledge deficit where more evidence is needed to support the "best care possible" for this population: (1) what matters most to older adults with advanced CKD and their caregivers near the end of life; (2) how the nephrology community can best support older adults with advanced CKD to navigate complex treatment decisions throughout their illness; and (3) how the healthcare system should be reconfigured to promote patient- and family-centered care for older adults with advanced CKD. Research priorities include identifying opportunities for improving the end-of-life experience of older adults with CKD and their caregivers; developing and testing communication interventions before and during dialysis to ensure that treatment decisions reflect patients' preferences; and assessing the effectiveness of palliative care in improving quality of life for patients and caregivers, satisfaction with care, and aligning treatment decisions with patient goals and preferences.

Palliative Care Disincentives in CKD: Changing Policy to Improve CKD Care

The dominant health delivery model for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States, which focuses on provision of dialysis, is ill-equipped to address many of the needs of seriously ill patients. Although palliative care may address some of these gaps in care, its integration into advanced CKD care has been suboptimal due to several health system barriers. These barriers include uneven access to specialty palliative care services, underdeveloped models of care for seriously ill patients with advanced CKD, and misaligned policy incentives. This article reviews policies that affect the delivery of palliative care for this population, discusses reforms that could address disincentives to palliative care, identifies quality measurement issues for palliative care for individuals with advanced CKD and ESRD, and considers potential pitfalls in the implementation of new models of integrated palliative care. Reforming health care delivery in ways that remove policy disincentives to palliative care for patients with advanced CKD and ESRD will fill a critical gap in care.

Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics

Patient reported measures (PRMs), including patient-reported outcomes, play a critical role in dialysis care. The usage of PRMs is extensive in dialysis clinics. While there are excellent PRMs to choose from, and their implementation as part of quality improvement and performance monitoring is extensive, there are still methodological challenges to be addressed. In this paper, we identify key methodological concerns around use of PRMs in dialysis centers in the United States and make recommendations for improving the use of PRMs in dialysis related to Selection of PRMs, Mode of Administration, and Support for PRM Use. These recommendations include: (1) Continue the use of Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item survey (KDQOL™-36) for dialysis centers' internal quality improvement activities and the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS survey®) for public dialysis center performance monitoring, but promote efforts to modify these instruments by incorporating PROMIS general health items (KDQOL-36) and reducing the length of the ICH-CAHPS. (2) Adopt a PRM of whether dialysis patients have been informed about all dialysis and transplant options. (3) Evaluate equivalence between electronic and paper versions of PRMs prior to widespread use of electronic administration. (4) Explore reimbursement of costs of PRM administration by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and kidney organizations. (5) Continue development of provider trainings in PRM administration and interpretation. These recommendations will help dialysis care decision-makers, clinicians, and applied researchers take the next steps toward enhancing PRM use in dialysis.

Attitudes and Opinions of Canadian Nephrologists Toward Continuous Quality Improvement Options

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A shift to holding individual physicians accountable for patient outcomes, rather than facilities, is intuitively attractive to policy makers and to the public. We were interested in nephrologists' attitudes to, and awareness of, quality metrics and how nephrologists would view a potential switch from the current model of facility-based quality measurement and reporting to publically available reports at the individual physician level.

DESIGN SETTING PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS

The study was conducted using a web-based survey instrument (Online Appendix 1). The survey was initially pilot tested on a group of 8 nephrologists from across Canada. The survey was then finalized and e-mailed to 330 nephrologists through the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) e-mail distribution list. The 127 respondents were 80% university based, and 33% were medical/dialysis directors.

RESULTS

The response rate was 43%. Results demonstrate that 89% of Canadian nephrologists are engaged in efforts to improve the quality of patient care. A minority of those surveyed (29%) had training in quality improvement. They feel accountable for this and would welcome the inclusion of patient-centered metrics of care quality. Support for public reporting as an effective strategy on an individual nephrologist level was 30%.

CONCLUSIONS

Support for public reporting of individual nephrologist performance was low. The care of nephrology patients will be best served by the continued development of a critical mass of physicians trained in patient safety and quality improvement, by focusing on patient-centered metrics of care delivery, and by validating that all proposed new methods are shown to improve patient care and outcomes.

The ESRD Quality Incentive Program-Can We Bridge the Chasm?

The ESRD Quality Incentive Program (QIP) is the first mandatory federal pay for performance program launched on January 1, 2012. The QIP is tied to the ESRD prospective payment system and mandated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, which directed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand the payment bundle for renal dialysis services and legislated that payment be tied to quality measures. The QIP links 2% of the payment that a dialysis facility receives for Medicare patients on dialysis to the facility's performance on quality of care measures. Quality measures are evaluated annually for inclusion on the basis of importance, validity, and performance gap. Other quality assessment programs overlap with the QIP; all have substantial effects on provision of care as clinicians, patients, regulators, and dialysis organizations scramble to keep up with the frequent release of wide-ranging regulations. In this review, we provide an overview of quality assessment and quality measures, focusing on the ESRD QIP, its effect on care, and its potential future directions. We conclude that a patient-centered, individualized, and parsimonious approach to quality assessment needs to be maintained to allow the nephrology community to further bridge the quality chasm in dialysis care.

The Use of a Multidimensional Measure of Dialysis Adequacy-Moving beyond Small Solute Kinetics

Urea removal has become a key measure of the intensity of dialysis treatment for kidney failure. Small solute removal, exemplified by Kt/Vurea, has been broadly applied as a means to quantify the dose of thrice weekly hemodialysis. Yet, the reliance on small solute clearances alone as a measure of dialysis adequacy fails fully to quantify the intended clinical effects of dialysis therapy. This review aims to (1) understand the strengths and limitations of small solute kinetics as a surrogate marker of dialysis dose, and (2) present the prospect of a more comprehensive construct for dialysis dose, one that considers more broadly the goals of ESRD care to maximize both quality of life and survival. On behalf of the American Society of Nephrology Dialysis Advisory Group, we propose the need to ascertain the validity and utility of a multidimensional measure that moves beyond small solute kinetics alone to quantify optimal dialysis derived from both patient-reported and comprehensive clinical and dialysis-related measures.

Nephrologists' Perspectives on Defining and Applying Patient-Centered Outcomes in Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient centeredness is widely advocated as a cornerstone of health care, but it is yet to be fully realized, including in nephrology. Our study aims to describe nephrologists' perspectives on defining and implementing patient-centered outcomes in hemodialysis.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Face-to-face, semistructured interviews were conducted with 58 nephrologists from 27 dialysis units across nine countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Singapore, and New Zealand. Transcripts were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified five themes on defining and implementing patient-centered outcomes in hemodialysis: explicitly prioritized by patients (articulated preferences and goals, ascertaining treatment burden, defining hemodialysis success, distinguishing a physician-patient dichotomy, and supporting shared decision making), optimizing wellbeing (respecting patient choice, focusing on symptomology, perceptible and tangible, and judging relevance and consequence), comprehending extensive heterogeneity of clinical and quality of life outcomes (distilling diverse priorities, highly individualized, attempting to specify outcomes, and broadening context), clinically hamstrung (professional deficiency, uncertainty and complexity in measurement, beyond medical purview, specificity of care, mechanistic mindset [focused on biochemical targets and comorbidities], avoiding alarm, and paradoxical dilemma), and undermined by system pressures (adhering to overarching policies, misalignment with mandates, and resource constraints).

CONCLUSIONS

Improving patient-centered outcomes is regarded by nephrologists to encompass strategies that address patient goals and improve wellbeing and treatment burden in patients on hemodialysis. However, efforts are hampered by ambiguities about how to prioritize, measure, and manage the plethora of critical comorbidities and broader quality of life outcomes in a care setting that is technically demanding and driven by biochemical targets. Identifying critical patient-important outcomes and mechanisms for integrating them into practice may help to deliver patient-centered care in hemodialysis and other chronic disease settings.

Advance Directives and End-of-Life Care among Nursing Home Residents Receiving Maintenance Dialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the relation between the content of advance directives and downstream treatment decisions among patients receiving maintenance dialysis. In this study, we determined the prevalence of advance directives specifying treatment limitations and/or surrogate decision-makers in the last year of life and their association with end-of-life care among nursing home residents.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using national data from 2006 to 2007, we compared the content of advance directives among 30,716 nursing home residents receiving dialysis to 30,825 nursing home residents with other serious illnesses during the year before death. Among patients receiving dialysis, we linked the content of advance directives to Medicare claims to ascertain site of death and treatment intensity in the last month of life.

RESULTS

In the last year of life, 36% of nursing home residents receiving dialysis had a treatment-limiting directive, 22% had a surrogate decision-maker, and 13% had both in adjusted analyses. These estimates were 13%-27%, 5%-11%, and 6%-13% lower, respectively, than for decedents with other serious illnesses. For patients receiving dialysis who had both a treatment-limiting directive and surrogate decision-maker, the adjusted frequency of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, intensive procedures, and inpatient death were lower by 13%, 17%, 13%, and 14%, respectively, and hospice use and dialysis discontinuation were 5% and 7% higher compared with patients receiving dialysis lacking both components.

CONCLUSIONS

Among nursing home residents receiving dialysis, treatment-limiting directives and surrogates were associated with fewer intensive interventions and inpatient deaths, but were in place much less often than for nursing home residents with other serious illnesses.

Supportive Care: Integration of Patient-Centered Kidney Care to Manage Symptoms and Geriatric Syndromes

Dialysis care is often associated with poor outcomes including low quality of life (QOL). To improve patient-reported outcomes, incorporation of the patient's needs and perspective into the medical care they receive is essential. This article provides a framework to help clinicians integrate symptom assessment and other measures such as QOL and frailty scores into a clinical approach to the contemporary supportive care of patients with advanced CKD. This approach involves (1) defining our understanding of kidney supportive care, patient-centered dialysis, and palliative dialysis; (2) understanding and recognizing common symptoms associated with advanced CKD; (3) discussing the concepts of physical function, frailty, and QOL and their role in CKD; and (4) identifying the structural and process barriers that may arise when patient-centered dialysis is being introduced into clinical practice.

Depression in Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease: Similarities and Differences in Diagnosis, Epidemiology, and Management

Depression is highly prevalent and is associated with poor quality of life and increased mortality among adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), including those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, there are several important differences in the diagnosis, epidemiology, and management of depression between patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD and ESRD. Understanding these differences may lead to a better understanding of depression in these 2 distinct populations. First, diagnosing depression using self-reported questionnaires may be less accurate in patients with ESRD compared with CKD. Second, although the prevalence of interview-based depression is approximately 20% in both groups, the risk factors for depression may vary. Third, potential mechanisms of depression might also differ in CKD versus ESRD. Finally, considerations regarding the type and dose of antidepressant medications vary between CKD and ESRD. Future studies should further examine the mechanisms of depression in both groups, and test interventions to prevent and treat depression in these populations.

Quality Measures for Dialysis: Time for a Balanced Scorecard

Recent federal legislation establishes a merit-based incentive payment system for physicians, with a scorecard for each professional. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services evaluate quality of care with clinical performance measures and have used these metrics for public reporting and payment to dialysis facilities. Similar metrics may be used for the future merit-based incentive payment system. In nephrology, most clinical performance measures measure processes and intermediate outcomes of care. These metrics were developed from population studies of best practice and do not identify opportunities for individualizing care on the basis of patient characteristics and individual goals of treatment. The In-Center Hemodialysis (ICH) Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey examines patients' perception of care and has entered the arena to evaluate quality of care. A balanced scorecard of quality performance should include three elements: population-based best clinical practice, patient perceptions, and individually crafted patient goals of care.

Cost of renal replacement: how to help as many as possible while keeping expenses reasonable?

The treatment of kidney diseases consumes a substantial amount of the health budget for a relatively small fraction of the overall population. If the nephrological community and society do not develop mechanisms to contain those costs, it will become impossible to continue assuring optimal outcomes and quality of life while treating all patients who need it. In this article, we describe several mechanisms to maintain sustainability of renal replacement therapy. These include (i) encouragement of transplantation after both living and deceased donation; (ii) stimulation of alternative dialysis strategies besides classical hospital haemodialysis, such as home haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or self-care and necessitating less reimbursement; (iii) promotion of educational activities guiding the patients towards therapies that are most suited for them; (iv) consideration of one or more of cost containment incentives such as bundling of reimbursement (if not affecting quality of the treatment), timely patient referral, green dialysis, start of dialysis based on clinical necessity rather than renal function parameters and/or prevention of CKD or its progression; (v) strategically planned adaptations to the expected growth of the ageing population in need of renal replacement; (vi) the necessity for support of research in the direction of helping as large as possible patient populations for acceptable costs; and (vii) the need for more patient-centred approaches. We also extend the discussion to the specific situation of kidney diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Finally, we point to the dramatic differences in accessibility and reimbursement of different modalities throughout Europe. We hope that this text will offer a framework for the nephrological community, including patients and nurses, and the concerned policy makers and caregivers on how to continue reaching all patients in need of renal replacement for affordable expenses.