Patients’ Perceptions and Factors Affecting Dialysis Modality Decisions

The utilization of renal dialysis: a comprehensive study in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Understanding the trend of utilization of renal dialysis in Saudi Arabia (SA) is fundamental as it provides a general overview of renal care. The practice of renal dialysis assists in identifying challenges, opportunities, and potential areas for improvement in the provision of the services.

OBJECTIVES

This research investigated the utilization of renal dialysis services in SA by exploring the number of renal dialysis centers, hemodialysis machines (HD), and peritoneodialysis patients.

METHODS

The dataset for this study was derived from a collaboration between the General Authority of Statistics (GaStat) and the Ministry of Health (MoH), focusing on indicators for renal dialysis centers and patients across health sectors in 2021. Analysis was conducted using MS Excel 365 and IBM SPSS Version 29, incorporating multiple regression techniques. The health sector was treated as the dependent variable. At the same time, the number of hemodialysis (HD) machines and the counts of HD and peritoneal dialysis patients were considered independent variables.

RESULTS

Around 275 renal dialysis centers, over 8000 HD machines, 20,440 HD patients, and 1,861 peritoneal patients were tallied from two resources. The findings revealed a negative relationship between the health sector and several renal dialysis centers and peritoneodialysis patients, as demonstrated by p < 0.05 in multiple regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

The number of renal dialysis centers influences the availability of HD machines, affecting the number of HD and peritoneodialysis patients. Most national patients preferred MoH over other semi-governmental and private sectors, and vice versa for non-Saudis.

The need for individualizing teaching and assurance of knowledge transmission to patients training for home dialysis

Patients have varied learning styles and this has implications for home haemodialysis (HHD). Assessment tools directed toward understanding these styles remains understudied. As a consequence, this may lead to substandard retention rates or adverse events in HHD programs. As part of a continuous quality improvement initiative we have aimed to improve our understanding of patient learning styles and consequently tailor home dialysis training to individuals. To objectively determine knowledge translation and comprehension, irrespective of learning styles, we have introduced an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). This assessment tool allows for further refinement of educational priorities by highlighting both deficiencies and strengths. Thereafter, an exit OSCE ensures patients attain an acceptable standard to complete home haemodialysis independently. We hope this tool will help shape future training criteria for HHD programs and consequently reduce adverse event rates.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: the disruptor that maintenance dialysis never anticipated

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has upended maintenance dialysis in the United States. I review changes in prevalence, incidence, mortality, and other clinical outcomes among patients undergoing dialysis since March 2020, highlighting vulnerabilities in the current system and opportunities for improved care in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of dialysis patients in the United States declined between March 2020 and March 2021, an unprecedented year-over-year drop in the census. Some of the decline can be attributed to an early drop in patients initiating dialysis but most of the decline can be attributed to excess mortality. Kidney transplants also declined during the early part of the pandemic. Home dialysis utilization increased during 2020 but that increase was largely in line with secular trends. The rate of hospitalization for causes other than COVID-19 fell significantly during 2020.

SUMMARY

The epidemiology of dialysis in the United States is clearly modifiable, as it reflects decisions to initiate treatment, prescribe home therapies, and hospitalize patients with acute medical needs. On the other hand, some outcomes are powerfully guided by health outcomes in the general population, thus limiting the ability of dialysis providers and nephrologists to influence outcomes.

Results of the European EDITH nephrologist survey on factors influencing treatment modality choice for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Access to forms of dialysis, kidney transplantation (Tx) and comprehensive conservative management (CCM) for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) varies across European countries. Attitudes of nephrologists, information provision and decision-making may influence this access and nephrologists may experience several barriers when providing treatments for ESKD.

METHODS

We surveyed European nephrologists and kidney transplant surgeons treating adults with ESKD about factors influencing modality choice. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the opinions of professionals from European countries with low-, middle- and high-gross domestic product purchasing power parity (GDP PPP).

RESULTS

In total, 681 professionals from 33 European countries participated. Respondents from all GDP categories indicated that ∼10% of patients received no information before the start of renal replacement therapy (RRT) (P = 0.106). Early information provision and more involvement of patients in decision-making were more frequently reported in middle- and high-GDP countries (P < 0.05). Professionals' attitudes towards several treatments became more positive with increasing GDP (P < 0.05). Uptake of in-centre haemodialysis was sufficient to 73% of respondents, but many wanted increased uptake of home dialysis, Tx and CCM. Respondents experienced different barriers according to availability of specific treatments in their centre. The occurrence of barriers (financial, staff shortage, lack of space/supplies and patient related) decreased with increasing GDP (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in factors influencing modality choice when providing RRT or CCM to adults with ESKD were found among low-, middle- and high-GDP countries in Europe. Therefore a unique pan-European policy to improve access to treatments may be inefficient. Different policies for clusters of countries could be more useful.

Exploring stakeholders and their requirements in the process of home hemodialysis: A literature review

Providing home hemodialysis (HHD) therapy is a complex process that not only requires the use of a complex technology but also involves a diverse group of stakeholders, and each stakeholder has their requirements and may not share a common interest. Bringing them together will require the alignment of their interests. A process management perspective can help to accomplish the alignment of their interests. To align their interests, it is crucial to identify interest groups and understand their interests. The main objective of this paper is to identify the stakeholders and represents their interests as a list of requirements in the HHD process. An extensive literature review has been carried out and PubMed was used for literature extraction. In total, 1848 articles were retrieved of which 80 have fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A large array of actors is identified and their interests/requirements at different stages of the HHD process are represented in the form of a list. They have both common and conflicting requirements in the HHD process. If these requirements are aligned and balanced, a stakeholder's driven treatment process will be developed and a real improvement will be achieved in the treatment process.

Perceptions of Multidisciplinary Renal Team Members toward Home Dialysis Therapies

Background

Patients with ESKD are encouraged to pursue home dialysis therapy with the aims of improving quality of life, increasing patient autonomy, and reducing cost to health care systems. In a multidisciplinary team setting, patients interact with nephrologists, nurses, and allied health staff, all of whom may influence a patient's modality choice. Our objective was to evaluate the perceptions of all renal team members toward home dialysis therapies.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional survey of multidisciplinary renal team members across five renal programs in British Columbia, Canada. The survey contained questions regarding primary work area, modality preference, patient and system factors that may influence modality candidacy, perceived knowledge of home therapies, and need for further education.

Results

A total of 334 respondents (22 nephrologists, 172 hemodialysis nurses, 49 home nurses, 20 predialysis nurses, and 71 allied health staff) were included (48% response rate). All respondents felt that home dialysis was beneficial for patients who work or study, improved patients' quality of life, and provided cost savings to the system. Compared with in-center hemodialysis nurses, home therapies nurses were between five and nine times more likely to favor a home therapy for patients of older age, lower socioeconomic status, lower educational level, higher burden of comorbidities, and those lacking social supports. Nephrologists and patients were felt to have the most influence on modality choice, whereas dialysis nurses were seen as having the least effect on modality choice. Most respondents felt the need for further education in home therapies.

Conclusions

The majority of multidisciplinary team members, including allied health staff, acknowledged the benefits of home therapies. There were significant discrepancies among team members regarding patient-/system-level factors that may affect the candidacy of home therapies. Structured, focused, and repeated education sessions for all renal team members may help to address misperceptions around factors that influence modality candidacy.

Burden in primary family caregivers caring for uremic patients on maintenance peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

Managing the burden of care for patients with chronic debilitating diseases is an important issue. Herein, we assessed the burden in primary family members caring for uremic patients on maintenance peritoneal dialysis.

METHODS

One hundred seventy caregivers and 170 patients were recruited. Self-perceived scoring along the Zarit Caregiver Burden Scale (ZCBS), World Health Organization Five-item Well-Being Index (WHO-5), and Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) were determined for caregivers.

RESULTS

There was an inverse relationship between ZCBS and WHO-5 or WEMWBS scores in caregivers, suggesting that the higher the burden, the lesser the self-perceived well-being. One hundred two of 170 caregivers (60%) reported mild to moderate burden, indicating a common presence of mild to moderate caring-related mental and physical stress. Moreover, 31 caregivers (18.2%) reported moderate to severe burden. Several patient disease factors, including diabetes and frailty, increased caregiver burden, while insurance coverage and out-of-pocket medical costs were also positively correlated. Caregivers who lived with patients and spent longer hours in caring-related activities had higher burden scores, while regular exercise seemed to partially alleviate the burden.

CONCLUSION

Our study clearly showed that caring for patients with maintenance peritoneal dialysis caused physical, mental, and social burden in family caregivers, with the extent of the stress being influenced by patients' disease severity and other demographic factors in both patients and caregivers.

Patient Perspectives on Renal Replacement Therapy Modality Choice: A Multicenter Questionnaire Study on Bioethical Dimensions

Background:Peritoneal dialysis (PD) incidence and prevalence in Germany are low compared with hemodialysis (HD), an underachievement with multifactorial causes. Patient perspectives on renal replacement therapy (RRT) choice play a growing role in research. To date, and to the best of our knowledge, the importance of bioethical dimensions in the context of RRT choice has not been analyzed. The aim of this multicenter questionnaire study was to delineate differences in patient perspectives of PD vs HD in terms of bioethical dimensions, thus helping nephrologists target potential PD candidates more efficiently.Methods:A total of 121 stable outpatients from 2 tertiary care hospitals and 4 dialysis clinics were surveyed for bioethical dimensions ("autonomy," "beneficence," "non-maleficence," "justice," and "trust") with ranking and Likert scale items. Inclusion criteria were RRT > 3 months, age ≥ 18 years, and sufficient cognitive and language skills.Results:A surprisingly high percentage of patients felt excluded from the RRT choice process. Peritoneal dialysis patients were more critical of RRT. They used more versatile information sources on RRT, whereas HD patients were mainly informed by their nephrologist. Peritoneal dialysis patients felt more often dissatisfied with RRT than HD patients and had less trust in their co-patients. However, PD patients felt less autonomy impairment regarding body integrity, fluid balance, and dialysis in general.Conclusions:Our study demonstrates that PD patients showed more scrutiny of their situation as patients, especially their co-patients. Their treatment empowered them toward feeling more autonomous than HD patients. These new insights into patient perspectives on RRT choice might facilitate modality choice for nephrologists.