Hamidi S, Zarnke S, Turcotte K, Silver SA. The Feasibility of a Transitional Care Unit for Patients Newly
Started on In-Center Hemodialysis: A Research Letter.
Can J Kidney Health Dis 2023;
10:20543581231162235. [PMID:
36970567 PMCID:
PMC10031589 DOI:
10.1177/20543581231162235]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2022] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 03/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Background:
Patients with end-stage kidney disease face high mortality and morbidity
after dialysis initiation. Transitional care units (TCUs) are typically 4-
to 8-week structured multidisciplinary programs targeted toward patients
starting hemodialysis during this high-risk time in their care. The goals of
such programs are to provide psychosocial support, provide dialysis modality
education, and reduce risks of complications. Despite apparent benefits, the
TCU model may be challenging to implement, and the effect on patient
outcomes is unclear.
Objective:
To assess a newly created multidisciplinary TCUs’ feasibility for patients
newly started on hemodialysis.
Design:
Before-and-after study.
Setting:
Kingston Health Sciences Centre hemodialysis unit in Ontario, Canada.
Patients:
We considered all adult patients (age 18+) who initiated in-center
maintenance hemodialysis eligible for the TCU program, although patients on
infection control precautions and evening shifts were not able to receive
TCU care due to staffing limitations.
Measurements:
We defined feasibility as eligible patients completing the TCU program in a
timely fashion without additional need for space, no signal of harm, and
without explicit concerns from TCU staff or patients at weekly meetings. Key
outcomes at 6 months included mortality, proportion hospitalized, dialysis
modality, vascular access, initiation of transplant workup, and code
status.
Methods:
The TCU care consisted of 1:1 nursing and education until predefined clinical
stability and dialysis decisions were satisfied. We compared outcomes among
the pre-TCU cohort who initiated hemodialysis between June 2017 and May
2018, and TCU patients who initiated dialysis between June 2018 and March
2019. We summarized outcomes descriptively, along with unadjusted odds
ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results:
We included 115 pre-TCU patients and 109 post-TCU patients, of whom 49/109
(45%) entered and completed the TCU. The most common reasons for not
participating in the TCU included evening hemodialysis shifts (18/60, 30%)
or contact precautions (18/60, 30%). The TCU patients completed the program
in a median of 35 (25-47) days. We observed no differences in mortality (9%
vs 8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.28-3.13) or proportion hospitalized (38% vs
39%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.51-2.03) between the pre-TCU cohort and TCU
patients. There was also no difference in use of home dialysis (16% vs 10%;
OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 0.64-4.39), non-catheter access (32% vs 25%; OR = 1.44,
95% CI = 0.69-2.98), initiation of transplant workup (14% vs 12%; OR 1.67;
95% CI = 0.64-4.39), and choosing “do not resuscitate” (DNR) orders (22% vs
19%; OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.54-2.77). There was no negative patient or staff
feedback on the program.
Limitations:
Small sample size and potential for selection bias given inability to provide
TCU care for patients on infection control precautions or evening
shifts.
Conclusions:
The TCU accommodated a large number of patients, who completed the program in
a timely fashion. The TCU model was determined to be feasible at our center.
There was no difference in outcomes due to the small sample size. Future
work at our center is required to expand the number of TCU dialysis chairs
to evening shifts and evaluate the TCU model in prospective, controlled
studies.
Collapse