A Systematic Review and Jurisdictional Scan of the Evidence Characterizing and Evaluating Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis Models

A retrospective clinical and economic analysis of an assisted automated peritoneal dialysis programme in Western Australia

BACKGROUND

Assisted peritoneal dialysis (aPD) represents an alternative kidney replacement therapy for dialysis-dependent patients whose only other options are prolonged hospitalisations or transfer to in-centre haemodialysis (HD). Most programmes have not examined the role of temporary aPD, and there is limited data surrounding the economic implications of temporary aPD programmes. The main aim of this study was to describe the cost-effectiveness of an assisted automated peritoneal dialysis (aAPD) programme, for patients whose only reason to stay in hospital was the temporary inability to independently perform PD at home.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-centre analysis of 45 referrals for aAPD from November 2015 to May 2021. Two groups of patients were enrolled in the study: respite patients already established on PD (to facilitate discharge or prevent admission) and new patients who were not yet trained (to facilitate discharge). To calculate the cost differential, patients were allocated to either staying in hospital or transferring to centre-based HD with comparison to costs on aAPD. Costs were calculated using a healthcare system perspective over the duration of aAPD assistance. Clinical outcomes including peritonitis rate, hospitalisation and mortality were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 1349 episodes of aAPD care were delivered. One thousand forty-two episodes (77%) were for respite patients and 307 episodes (23%) were for new patients awaiting training. The mean duration of assistance was 18 days for pretraining patients and 37 days for respite patients. Overall, the mean length of stay on the programme was 30 days with a range of 1-263 days (SD 43) and 73% of patients graduated to self-care PD. The cost of the aAPD programme was $242 per visit, with an average cost $7260 per patient-episode. The aAPD programme was significantly cheaper than the alternatives, with average hospitalization costs $46,170 per episode, and in-centre HD costs of $9667. $1.497 million was saved over the course of the study. Eleven hospitalisations occurred and the peritonitis rate was 0.8 episodes per patient-year. Two patients died while on aAPD.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first detailed description of an aAPD respite programme in Australia. We conclude that the implementation of a temporary aAPD programme could lead to a significant reduction in healthcare costs, however peritonitis rates were high.

Evaluation and outcomes of a 5-year assisted peritoneal dialysis program

BACKGROUND

In 2016, Peritoneal Dialysis Assist (PDA) was implemented in British Columbia, Canada, as a pilot program to allow patients with physical, cognitive and social impairments to access an independent dialysis modality. This is a presentation of the usage and 5-year clinical outcomes of our provincial assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) program.

METHODS

Patients who utilised long-term or respite PDA services in British Columbia, Canada, from 2016 to 2021 were included in this program evaluation. Incident and prevalent patient numbers were characterised annually as well as indications for PDA and patient demographics both annually and over time. Outcomes of interest included death, transfer to haemodialysis, transplantation and cessation of the PDA program but retention on PD.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-two total patients received services through the PDA program. The percentage of PD patients supported by long-term PDA service has grown to 11.2% in the most recent year. Patients spend a median of 13.6 (95% CI: 11.0, 16.1) months on long-term PDA, prolonging overall patient duration on PD by a little over a year. Of the patients who exited the long-term PDA program, 73 (37.4%) were able to utilise the service until they died.

CONCLUSION

PDA is an accessible, patient-centric service with clear and standardised referral criteria. Through the implementation of a local PDA program, patients have accessed PD and may have extended their PD life span, through avoidance of in-centre haemodialysis, by over 13 months during this 5-year study period. A significant proportion of patients on long-term PDA were able to use their preferred kidney replacement modality at home until they reached end of life.

Centre variation in home dialysis uptake: A survey of kidney centre practice in relation to home dialysis organisation and delivery in England

BACKGROUND

Disparities in home dialysis uptake across England suggest inequity and unexplained variation in access. We surveyed staff at all English kidney centres to identify patterns in service organisation/delivery and explore correlations with home therapy uptake, as part of a larger study ('Inter-CEPt'), which aims to identify potentially modifiable factors to address observed variations.

METHODS

Between June and September 2022, staff working at English kidney centres were surveyed and individual responses combined into one centre-level response per question using predetermined data aggregation rules. Descriptive analysis described centre practices and their correlation with home dialysis uptake (proportion of new home dialysis starters) using 2019 UK Renal Registry 12-month home dialysis incidence data.

RESULTS

In total, 180 responses were received (50/51 centres, 98.0%). Despite varied organisation of home dialysis services, most components of service delivery and practice had minimal or weak correlations with home dialysis uptake apart from offering assisted peritoneal dialysis and 'promoting flexible decision-making about dialysis modality'. Moderate to strong correlations were identified between home dialysis uptake and centres reporting supportive clinical leadership (correlation 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.05-0.55), an organisational culture that values trying new initiatives (0.57, 95% CI: 0.34-0.73); support for reflective practice (0.38, 95% CI: 0.11-0.60), facilitating research engagement (0.39, 95% CI: 0.13-0.61) and promoting continuous quality improvement (0.29, 95% CI: 0.01-0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of home dialysis is likely to be driven by organisational culture, leadership and staff attitudes, which provide a supportive clinical environment within which specific components of service organisation and delivery can be effective.

Setting Up Home Dialysis Programs: Now and in the Future

Home dialysis utilization has been growing in the United States over the past decade but still lags behind similar socioeconomic nations. More than half of dialysis facilities in the United States either are not licensed to offer home dialysis or, despite a license, have no patients dialyzing at home, and many programs have a relatively small census. Multiple stakeholders, including patients, health care providers, and payers, have identified increased home dialysis use as an important goal. To realize these goals, nephrologists and kidney care professionals need a sound understanding of the key considerations in home dialysis center operation. In this review, we outline the core domains required to set up and operate a home dialysis program in the United States now and in the future.

Delivering Personalized, Goal-Directed Care to Older Patients Receiving Peritoneal Dialysis

Background

An aging population living with chronic kidney disease and progressing to kidney failure, subsequently receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD) is growing. A significant proportion of these patients are also living with multi-morbidities and some degree of frailty. Recent practice recommendations from the International Society of Peritoneal Dialysis advocate for high-quality, goal-directed PD prescription, and the Standardized Outcomes of Nephrology-PD initiative emphasized the need for an individualized, goal-based care approach in all patients receiving PD treatment. In older patients, this approach to PD care is even more important. A frailty screening assessment, followed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) prior to PD initiation and when dictated by change in relevant circumstances is paramount in tailoring PD care and prescription according to the needs, life goals, as well as clinical status of older patients with kidney failure.

Summary

Our review aimed to summarize the different dimensions to be taken into account when delivering PD care to the older patient - from frailty screening and CGA in older patients receiving PD to employing a personalized, goal-directed PD prescription strategy, to preserving residual kidney function, optimizing blood pressure (BP) control, and managing anemia, to addressing symptom burden, to managing nutritional intake and promoting physical exercise, and to explore telehealth opportunities for the older PD population.

Key Messages

What matters most to older PD patients may not be simply extending survival, but more importantly, to be living comfortably on PD treatment with minimal symptom burden in a home environment and to minimize treatment complications.

Home dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Home dialysis modalities (home hemodialysis [HD] and peritoneal dialysis [PD]) are associated with greater patient autonomy and treatment satisfaction compared with in-center modalities, yet the level of home-dialysis use worldwide is low. Reasons for limited utilization are context-dependent, informed by local resources, dialysis costs, access to healthcare, health system policies, provider bias or preferences, cultural beliefs, individual lifestyle concerns, potential care-partner time, and financial burdens. In May 2021, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) convened a controversies conference on home dialysis, focusing on how modality choice and distribution are determined and strategies to expand home-dialysis use. Participants recognized that expanding use of home dialysis within a given health system requires alignment of policy, fiscal resources, organizational structure, provider incentives, and accountability. Clinical outcomes across all dialysis modalities are largely similar, but for specific clinical measures, one modality may have advantages over another. Therefore, choice among available modalities is preference-sensitive, with consideration of quality of life, life goals, clinical characteristics, family or care-partner support, and living environment. Ideally, individuals, their care-partners, and their healthcare teams will employ shared decision-making in assessing initial and subsequent kidney failure treatment options. To meet this goal, iterative, high-quality education and support for healthcare professionals, patients, and care-partners are priorities. Everyone who faces dialysis should have access to home therapy. Facilitating universal access to home dialysis and expanding utilization requires alignment of policy considerations and resources at the dialysis-center level, with clear leadership from informed and motivated clinical teams.

Epidemiology of peritoneal dialysis outcomes

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important home-based treatment for kidney failure and accounts for 11% of all dialysis and 9% of all kidney replacement therapy globally. Although PD is available in 81% of countries, this provision ranges from 96% in high-income countries to 32% in low-income countries. Compared with haemodialysis, PD has numerous potential advantages, including a simpler technique, greater feasibility of use in remote communities, generally lower cost, lesser need for trained staff, fewer management challenges during natural disasters, possibly better survival in the first few years, greater ability to travel, fewer dietary restrictions, better preservation of residual kidney function, greater treatment satisfaction, better quality of life, better outcomes following subsequent kidney transplantation, delayed need for vascular access (especially in small children), reduced need for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and lower risk of blood-borne virus infections and of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PD outcomes have been improving over time but with great variability, driven by individual and system-level inequities and by centre effects; this variation is exacerbated by a lack of standardized outcome definitions. Potential strategies for outcome improvement include enhanced standardization, monitoring and reporting of PD outcomes, and the implementation of continuous quality improvement programmes and of PD-specific interventions, such as incremental PD, the use of biocompatible PD solutions and remote PD monitoring.

The use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) can be advantageous compared with haemodialysis treatment, although several barriers limit its broad implementation. This review examines the epidemiology of peritoneal dialysis (PD) outcomes, including clinical, patient-reported and surrogate PD outcomes.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has distinct advantages compared with haemodialysis, including the convenience of home treatment, improved quality of life, technical simplicity, lesser need for trained staff, greater cost-effectiveness in most countries, improved equity of access to dialysis in resource-limited settings, and improved survival, particularly in the first few years of initiating therapy.

Important barriers can hamper PD utilization in low-income settings, including the high costs of PD fluids (owing to the inability to manufacture them locally and the exorbitant costs of their import), limited workforce availability and a practice culture that limits optimal PD use, often leading to suboptimal outcomes.

PD outcomes are highly variable around the world owing in part to the use of variable outcome definitions, a heterogeneous practice culture, the lack of standardized monitoring and reporting of quality indicators, and kidney failure care gaps (including health care workforce shortages, inadequate health care financing, suboptimal governance and a lack of good health care information systems).

Key outcomes include not only clinical outcomes (typically defined as medical outcomes based on clinician assessment or diagnosis) — for example, PD-related infections, technique survival, mechanical complications, hospitalizations and PD-related mortality — but also patient-reported outcomes. These outcomes are directly reported by patients and focus on how they function or feel, typically in relation to quality of life or symptoms; patient-reported outcomes are used less frequently than clinical outcomes in day-to-day routine care.

Availability of assisted peritoneal dialysis in Europe: call for increased and equal access

INTRODUCTION

Availability of assisted PD (asPD) increases access to dialysis at home, particularly for the increasing numbers of older and frail people with advanced kidney disease. Although asPD has been widely used in some European countries for many years, it remains unavailable or poorly utilised in others. A group of leading European nephrologists have therefore formed a group to drive increased availability of asPD in Europe and in their own countries.

METHODS

Members of the group filled in a proforma with the following headings: personal experience, country experience, who are the assistants, funding of asPD, barriers to growth, what is needed to grow, and their top 3 priorities.

RESULTS

Only 5 of the 13 countries surveyed provided publicly funded reimbursement for asPD. The use of asPD depends on overall attitudes to PD with all respondents mentioning need for nephrology team education and/or patient education and involvement in dialysis modality decision making.

CONCLUSION AND CALL TO ACTION

Many people with advanced kidney disease would prefer to have their dialysis at home, yet if the frail patient chooses PD most healthcare systems cannot provide their choice. AsPD should be available in all countries in Europe and for all renal centres. The top priorities to make this happen are education of renal healthcare teams about the advantages of PD, education of and discussion with patients and their families as they approach the need for dialysis, and engagement with policy makers and healthcare providers to develop and support assistance for PD.

Effects of cognitive impairment and assisted peritoneal dialysis on exit-site infection in older patients

BACKGROUND

Elderly peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients required assistance for a variety of PD-related tasks. The usefulness of assisted PD in reducing the peritonitis risk has been reported; however, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of assisted PD in preventing exit-site infections in older patients.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective cohort study. Thirty-three patients (mean age: 74.8 ± 5.9 years) on PD were evaluated for cognitive impairment (CI) using the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. They were also evaluated to determine whether they performed the exit-site care procedure alone or with assistance. Patients were categorized into four groups based on the presence or absence of CI and the presence or absence of exit-site care assistance. They were followed up until the occurrence of peritonitis and exit-site infection at the end of the follow-up.

RESULTS

Altogether, 8, 8, and 17 patients were assigned to the "without CI and without assistance", "without CI and with assistance", and "with CI and with assistance groups", respectively; no patients were assigned to the "with CI and without assistance group". Six and 16 patients experienced peritonitis and exit-site infection during follow-up, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests revealed that the "without CI and without assistance group" was significantly associated with exit-site infection (log-rank < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients who did not receive assistance for exit-site care were at a higher risk of exit-site infections, even in the absence of CI. Caregiver assistance is important for preventing exit-site infections in older patients on PD.

Assisted peritoneal dialysis: strategies and outcomes

Assisted peritoneal dialysis (asPD) is a modality intended for not self-sufficient patients, mainly elderly, who are not able to perform peritoneal dialysis (PD) alone and require some help to manage the treatment. In the last decades, many countries developed strategies of asPD to face with aging of dialysis population and give an answer to the increasing demand of health service for elderly. Model of asPD varies according to the type of assistants employed and intensity of assistance provided. Both health care and non-health care assistants have been used with good clinical results. A mixed model of help, using different professional figures for short time or for longer according to patients’ need, has been proved successful and cost-effective. Outcomes of asPD are reported in different ways, and the comparative effect of asPD is unclear. Quality of life has rarely been evaluated; however, patients seem to be satisfied with the assistance provided, since it allows them to both retain independence and to be relieved from the burden of self-care. Assisted PD should not be intended as a PD-favoring strategy, but as a model that allows home dialysis also in patients who would not be eligible for PD because of social, cognitive or physical barriers.

Assisted peritoneal dialysis across Europe: Practice variation and factors associated with availability

BACKGROUND

In Europe, the number of elderly end-stage kidney disease patients is increasing. Few of those patients receive peritoneal dialysis (PD), as many cannot perform PD autonomously. Assisted PD programmes are available in most European countries, but the percentage of patients receiving assisted PD varies considerably. Hence, we assessed which factors are associated with the availability of an assisted PD programme at a centre level and whether the availability of this programme is associated with proportion of home dialysis patients.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to healthcare professionals of European nephrology units. After selecting one respondent per centre, the associations were explored by χ ² tests and (ordinal) logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 609 respondents completed the survey. Subsequently, 288 respondents from individual centres were identified; 58% worked in a centre with an assisted PD programme. Factors associated with availability of an assisted PD programme were Western European and Scandinavian countries (OR: 5.73; 95% CI: 3.07-10.68), non-academic centres (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.09-3.72) and centres with a dedicated team for education (OR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.35-6.11). Most Eastern & Central European respondents reported that the proportion of incident and prevalent home dialysis patients was <10% (72% and 63%), while 27% of Scandinavian respondents reported a proportion of >30% for both incident and prevalent home dialysis patients. Availability of an assisted PD programme was associated with a higher incidence (cumulative OR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.21-3.01) and prevalence (cumulative OR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.76-4.47) of patients on home dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Assisted PD was more commonly offered among non-academic centres with a dedicated team for education across Europe, especially among Western European and Scandinavian countries where higher incidence and prevalence of home dialysis patients was reported.

Assisted peritoneal dialysis: a feasible KRT modality for frail older patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)

Assisted PD is used as an alternative option for the growing group of frail, older ESKD patients unable to perform their own PD. This study was undertaken to investigate the outcomes of assisted PD in older patients by comparing assisted PD patients with self-care PD patients. This study included all patients aged 70 and above who started on PD in our hospital from 2009 to 2018. Patients were followed up until death, PD cessation or to the end of the study (December 31, 2019). Risk factors associated with mortality, peritonitis and technique failure were evaluated using both cause-specific hazards and subdistribution hazards models. 180 patients were enrolled, including 106 (58.9%) males with a median age of 77.5 (77.2-81.2) years. Among the 180 patients, 62 patients (34.4%) were assisted. Patients on assisted PD group were older, more likely to be female, more prevalent in DM and CVD, with a higher Charlson score than patients undergoing self-care PD (P all < 0.05). In the multivariable analysis, assisted patients had a comparable patient survival and peritonitis-free survival compared to self-care PD patients either in the Cox or in the FG models. According to a Cox model, the use of assisted PD was associated with a lower risk of technique failure (cs-HR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04-0.76), but the association lost its statistical significance in the Fine and Gray model. Our results suggest that assisted PD could be a safe and effective KRT modality for older ESKD patients who need assistance.

Health Outcomes and Cost Considerations of Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is underutilized in many parts of the world despite pro-PD health policies. The physical and cognitive demands of PD means that over half of eligible patients require some form of assistance. As such, many countries now offer assisted PD (aPD) programs to help patients start or stay on PD as opposed to in-center hemodialysis (HD). In order to evaluate the potential scope of aPD, it is important to review the outcomes and cost considerations of aPD.

SUMMARY

We reviewed available data from different countries and regions for health outcomes between aPD and in-center HD, with a focus on quality of life (QoL), mortality, hospitalization, and technique survival. We also evaluated studies discussing the overall costs of delivering aPD, including training, operating costs, and indirect costs and compared these to in-center HD costs for the same regions. Key Messages: aPD patients are older and more frail than either self-care PD patients and many in-center HD patients. We found no evidence for any difference in QoL, mortality, or hospitalization between aPD and in-center HD after adjustment for these differences. There is some evidence for an association between nurse assistance and improved technique survival as compared to family assistance or self-care PD. Despite increased cost of providing assistance in PD, it is still significantly less expensive than in-center HD in Western Europe and Canada.

Barriers to Peritoneal Dialysis in Saskatchewan Canada: Results From a Province-Wide Survey

Background:

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an underutilized, therapeutic option to in-center hemodialysis (HD), given its similar survival and clinical efficacy but provides lifestyle benefits and cost savings. Despite these advantages, PD prevalence rates remains below 20% in many Canadian jurisdictions.

Objectives:

The primary objective of this study was to identify and assess patient-perceived barriers to PD implementation in Saskatchewan. The secondary objectives were to examine variations in patient-perceived barriers to PD by dialysis units (main dialysis units vs satellite dialysis units) and specific challenges faced by First Nation patients residing on reserves.

Design:

A cross-sectional observational survey study.

Setting:

Two major centers (Regina and Saskatoon) and 5 associated satellite units attached to each center across the province of Saskatchewan.

Patients:

We approached all prevalent in-center HD patients across Saskatchewan, 366 (49%) agreed to participate in the study.

Measurements:

Self-reported barriers to PD were assessed using a 26-question survey which was created after engagement of our multidisciplinary team.

Methods:

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 740 prevalent in-center HD patients within the province of Saskatchewan, Canada, from June 2018 to January 2019. Around 366 (49%) patients agreed to participate in the study. The questionnaire was designed to capture patients’ perceived barriers to PD. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the patients’ responses (main dialysis units vs satellite dialysis units, and First Nation reserves vs nonreserves).

Results:

Of the 366 patients who completed the survey, 284 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Patient-reported satisfaction with current in-center HD care was the most common barrier to PD uptake (92%), followed by proximity to their HD unit (61%). A lack of understanding of the benefits/risks of PD, fear of family burden (54% each), and unwillingness to dialyze daily and to learn a new technique (51% each) were additional factors. Patients residing on reserves compared to nonreserve residents felt PD had a higher risk of infection compared to HD (54% vs 34%, P = .005), and felt PD led to suboptimal care (47% vs 31%, P = .021).

Limitations:

We used a nonstandardized locally derived questionnaire to quantify barriers, and this prevents inclusion of additional barriers than individual patients may consider important. Cross-sectional data can only be used as a snapshot. Only 366 patients agreed to participate, and the results cannot be generalized to 740 prevalent HD patients. We did not capture data on demographics (age, income, and literacy level), comorbidities, and dialysis vintage, which would have been helpful in interpretation of the results. We did not involve patients, carers, or patients of First Nations heritage, in the design of the survey and the study.

Conclusions:

The results of our survey indicate that the major patient-reported barrier to PD uptake in our province is clinical inertia in patients defaulted to in-center HD at the onset of dialysis. Lack of patient awareness and knowledge of PD as a viable treatment modality also figured prominently, as did fears/concerns surrounding the safety, efficacy, and perceived family burden with PD compared with in-center HD.

Trial Registration:

The study was not registered on a publicly accessible registry because it did not involve any health care intervention on human participants.

Barriers to home dialysis: Unraveling the tapestry of policy

Home dialysis use as a treatment for end-stage kidney disease varies locally, nationally, and internationally. There is a call to action in the United States to significantly increase access and uptake of home dialysis as the preferred dialysis treatment option. Although most do not object to patient choice in modality selection, the reality is that there are multilevel barriers both obvious and subtle that interfere with expanding home dialysis access. Financial barriers and how payment is structured continue to be key drivers, although new models of care are emerging that include for the first time incentives rather than penalties regarding home dialysis. Resources to support implementation include expert personnel requiring educational training. Policies requiring training curriculum content that is not only specified within nephrology but also for these multidisciplinary providers requisite for successful home dialysis to ensure professional expertise is ready and available, and also to cultivate champions of home modality within the broader nephrology community. Perhaps most importantly, innovation through expanded investment in research is necessary to advance practices, elevate quality, and improve outcomes. Policy in a variety of sectors at local, regional, national, and international levels has the potential to drastically drive expansion and increasing success of home dialysis.

How To Build a Successful Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Program

In-center hemodialysis (HD) remains the predominant dialysis therapy in patients with ESKD. Many patients with ESKD present in late stage, requiring urgent dialysis initiation, and the majority start HD with central venous catheters (CVCs), which are associated with poor outcomes and high cost of care. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters can be safely placed in such patients with late-presenting ESKD, obviating the need for CVCs. PD can begin almost immediately in the recumbent position, using low fill volumes. Such PD initiations, commencing within 2 weeks of the catheter placement, are termed urgent-start PD (USPD). Most patients with an intact peritoneal cavity and stable home situation are eligible for USPD. Although there is a small risk of PD catheter–related mechanical complications, most can be managed conservatively. Moreover, overall outcomes of USPD are comparable to those with planned PD initiations, in contrast to the high rate of catheter-related infections and bacteremia associated with urgent-start HD. The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has further exposed the vulnerability of patients with ESKD getting in-center HD. PD can mitigate the risk of infection by reducing environmental exposure to the virus. Thus, USPD is a safe and cost-effective option for unplanned dialysis initiation in patients with late-presenting ESKD. To develop a successful USPD program, a strong infrastructure with clear pathways is essential. Coordination of care between nephrologists, surgeons or interventionalists, and hospital and PD center staff is imperative so that patient education, home visits, PD catheter placements, and urgent PD initiations are accomplished expeditiously. Implementation of urgent-start PD will help to increase PD use, reduce cost, and improve patient outcomes, and will be a step forward in fostering the goal set by the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative.