Patient-Reported Experiences of Dialysis Care Within a National Pay-for-Performance System

Unlocking Patient and Professional Value Through Patient Experience: Preliminary Development and Validation of the Patient Experience Assessment of In-Center Hemodialysis (PEACHD) Survey

Patient experience is a crucial measure of healthcare quality with the potential to increase value for several health stakeholders. However, various barriers often hinder its impact on quality improvement. Therefore, valid and reliable instruments developed through structured and collaborative processes are needed to establish methodological and organizational practices and ensure consensus and credibility among all stakeholders. This study presents the development and validation of the Patient Experience Assessment of in-Center Hemodialysis (PEACHD) survey. An expert panel, cognitive interviews, and a pilot test were conducted, involving both people receiving hemodialysis care and professionals from four Italian hospitals. The questionnaire evaluates key aspects of the in-center hemodialysis experience, including the provision of medical information, involvement in treatment decision-making, and communication with professionals. The PEACHD survey demonstrated strong content and face validity, acceptable construct validity, and good internal consistency reliability. Pilot data highlighted that the professional delivering care (i.e. nephrologist or dialysis nurse) significantly influenced patient experience and emphasized the need for a holistic and person-centered approach. The PEACHD survey enables effective patient experience evaluation, enhancing value for both service users and professionals.

Utilization of Telemedicine for Patients Receiving In-Center Hemodialysis in the United States

Key Points

Background

In March 2020, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, federal emergency waivers in the United States enabled kidney care providers (nephrologists and advanced practice providers) to substitute face-to-face in-center hemodialysis visits with telemedicine encounters. We examined whether the frequency of kidney care provider visits and hospitalizations were associated with telemedicine use in hemodialysis care.

Methods

We used Medicare claims to identify US patients receiving in-center hemodialysis during the first 16 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the association between telemedicine use during in-center hemodialysis, the frequency with which kidney care providers visited patients at dialysis four or more times per month, and hospitalizations. We also examined whether the association between telemedicine use and visit frequency varied at facilities located in more remote areas. Multivariable regression models adjusted for patient, physician, geographic, and dialysis facility characteristics along with the frequency with which kidney care providers saw patients at each facility before the pandemic. We focused on kidney care providers who demonstrated knowledge of how to bill for telemedicine visits by using the telemedicine modifier on prior claims.

Results

We identified 1881 providers who saw patients between March 2020 and June 2021 and were definitively using telemedicine. In the adjusted model, a 35% absolute higher use of telemedicine at a facility (representing 1 SD difference) was associated with a 1.4% higher rate of four or more visits (incidence rate ratio, 1.014; 95% confidence interval, 1.007 to 1.022). The association between telemedicine use and visit frequency was stronger where travel distances to facilities were farther (interaction P = 0.01). There was no significant association between telemedicine use and hospitalizations.

Conclusions

The use of telemedicine to care for patients receiving in-center hemodialysis was associated with a slightly higher frequency of four or more visits per month but not with hospitalizations; the association with visit frequency was more pronounced in areas where providers had to travel longer distances to see patients in person.

Factors influencing patient experience in hospital wards: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient experience plays an essential role in improving clinical effectiveness and patient safety. It's important to identify factors influencing patient experience and to improve quality of healthcare.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors that influence patient experience in hospital wards.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review including six databases; they were PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, ProQuest, and Cochrane. Studies were included if they met the inclusion criteria. The JBI checklist was used to perform quality appraisal. We used 5 domains of the ecological model to organize and synthesize our findings to comprehensively understand the multi-level factors influencing the issue.

RESULT

A total of 138 studies were included, and 164 factors were identified. These factors were integrated into 6 domains. All domains but one (survey-related factors) could be mapped onto the attributes of the ecological framework: intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, and public policy level factors. All factors had mixed effect on patient experience. The intrapersonal level refers to individual characteristics of patients. The interpersonal level refers to interactions between patients and healthcare providers, such as the caring time spent by a nurse. The institutional level refers to organizational characteristics, rules and regulations for operations, such as hospital size and accreditation. The community level refers to relationships among organizations, institutions, and informational networks within defined boundaries, such as a hospital located in a larger population area. Public policy level refers to local, state, national, and global laws and policies, including health insurance policies. The sixth domain, survey-related factors, was added to the framework and included factors such as survey response rate and survey response time.

CONCLUSION

The factors influencing patient experience are comprehensive, ranging from intrapersonal to public policy. Providers should adopt a holistic and integrated perspective to assess patient experience and develop context-specific interventions to improve the quality of care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42023401066.

The Patient's Perspective: Does It Align with Dialysis Adequacy?

Key Points

This study showed variation in satisfaction and quality of life between three dialysis centers, suggesting local factors influence outcomes. One center linked better dialysis to less satisfaction, but fully grasping satisfaction differences between sites warrants additional study.

Background

The concept of patient-centered care puts the individual's health needs and desired health outcomes as the driving forces behind medical decision making and quality assessment in the health care system. Patients with ESKD treated by hemodialysis require frequent encounters with the dialysis facility to survive. Therefore, their satisfaction with care and perceived patient experience are important aspects that might affect their adherence to the care regimen. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and its association with perceived patient experience and objective clinical quality parameters, across three hemodialysis clinics.

Methods

A prospective cohort study analyzed the data of 126 patients with ESKD receiving chronic hemodialysis over 9 months in three different care facilities. Sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, treatment details, and dialysis adequacy (measures as STDKt/V) were collected. Perceived quality of care, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes were assessed.

Results

Patients differed significantly between sites by age, diabetes status, and biochemical parameters. Satisfaction scores varied significantly for 12/14 survey questions and at the site-level, with site 2 scoring the highest. Overall satisfaction did not correlate with Kt/V. At site 1, a moderate negative correlation was found between satisfaction and Kt/V. Kt/V correlated positively with age but inversely with satisfaction. Hospitalization rates were similar regardless of satisfaction. Mortality trended lower in the highest Kt/V quartile.

Conclusions

Achieving clinical quality while optimizing patient satisfaction requires multifactorial approaches tailored to the unique population of the hemodialysis facility. Further research is needed to fully understand factors influencing satisfaction and perceived quality.

The Use of Telemedicine by US Nephrologists for In-Center Hemodialysis Care During the Pandemic: An Analysis of National Medicare Claims

Rationale & Objective

Because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the US government issued emergency waivers in March 2020 that removed regulatory barriers around the use of telemedicine. For the first time, nephrologists were reimbursed for telemedicine care delivered during in-center hemodialysis. We examined the use of telemedicine for in-center hemodialysis during the first 16 months of the pandemic.

Study Design

We ascertained telemedicine modifiers on nephrologist claims. We used multivariable regression to examine time trends and patient, dialysis facility, and geographic correlates of telemedicine use. We also examined whether the estimated effects of predictors of telemedicine use changed over time.

Setting & Participants

US Medicare beneficiaries receiving in-center hemodialysis between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021.

Exposures

Patient, geographic, and dialysis facility characteristics.

Outcomes

The use of telehealth for in-center hemodialysis care.

Analytic Approach

Retrospective cohort analysis.

Results

Among 267,434 Medicare beneficiaries identified, the reported use of telemedicine peaked at 9% of patient-months in April 2020 and declined to 2% of patient-months by June 2021. Telemedicine use varied geographically and was more common in areas that were remote and socioeconomically disadvantaged. Patients were more likely to receive care by telemedicine in areas with higher incidence of COVID-19, although the predictive value of COVID-19 diminished later in the pandemic. Patients were more likely to receive care using telemedicine if they were at facilities with more staff, and the use of telemedicine varied by facility ownership type.

Limitations

Limited reporting of telemedicine on claims could lead to underestimation of its use. Reported telemedicine use was higher in an analysis designed to address this limitation by focusing on patients whose physicians used telemedicine at least once during the pandemic.

Conclusions

Some US nephrologists continued to use telemedicine for in-center hemodialysis throughout the pandemic, even as the association between COVID-19 incidence and telemedicine use diminished over time. These findings highlight unique challenges and opportunities to the future use of telemedicine in dialysis care.

Development of the Parental Experience with Care for Children with Serious Illnesses (PRECIOUS) quality of care measure

BACKGROUND

Parent-reported experience measures are part of pediatric Quality of Care (QoC) assessments. However, existing measures were not developed for use across multiple healthcare settings or throughout the illness trajectory of seriously ill children. Formative work involving in-depth interviews with parents of children with serious illnesses generated 66 draft items describing key QoC processes. Our present aim is to develop a comprehensive parent-reported experience measure of QoC for children with serious illnesses and evaluate its content validity and feasibility.

METHODS

For evaluating content validity, we conducted a three-round Delphi expert panel review with 24 multi-disciplinary experts. Next, we pre-tested the items and instructions with 12 parents via cognitive interviews to refine clarity and understandability. Finally, we pilot-tested the full measure with 30 parents using self-administered online surveys to finalize the structure and content.

RESULTS

The Delphi expert panel review reached consensus on 68 items. Pre-testing with parents of seriously ill children led to consolidation of some items. Pilot-testing supported feasibility of the measure, resulting in a comprehensive measure comprising 56 process assessment items, categorized under ten subthemes and four themes: (1) Professional qualities of healthcare workers, (2) Supporting parent-caregivers, (3) Collaborative and holistic care, and (4) Efficient healthcare structures and standards. We named this measure the PaRental Experience with care for Children with serIOUS illnesses (PRECIOUS).

CONCLUSIONS

PRECIOUS is the first comprehensive measure and has the potential to standardize assessment of QoC for seriously ill children from parental perspectives. PRECIOUS allows for QoC process evaluation across contexts (such as geographic location or care setting), different healthcare workers, and over the illness trajectory for children suffering from a range of serious illnesses.

Association Between Dialysis Facility Ownership and Mortality Risk in Children With Kidney Failure

Importance

In adults, treatment at profit dialysis facilities has been associated with a higher risk of death.

Objective

To determine whether profit status of dialysis facilities is associated with the risk of death in children with kidney failure treated with dialysis and whether any such association is mediated by differences in access to transplant.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study reviewed US Renal Data System records of 15 359 children who began receiving dialysis for kidney failure between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2019, in US dialysis facilities. The data analysis was performed between May 2, 2022, and June 15, 2023.

Exposure

Time-updated profit status of dialysis facilities.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Adjusted Fine-Gray models were used to determine the association of time-updated profit status of dialysis facilities with risk of death, treating kidney transplant as a competing risk. Cox proportional hazards regression models were also used to determine time-updated profit status with risk of death regardless of transplant status.

Results

The final cohort included 8465 boys (55.3%) and 6832 girls (44.7%) (median [IQR] age, 12 [3-15] years). During a median follow-up of 1.4 (IQR, 0.6-2.7) years, with censoring at transplant, the incidence of death was higher at profit vs nonprofit facilities (7.03 vs 4.06 per 100 person-years, respectively). Children treated at profit facilities had a 2.07-fold (95% CI, 1.83-2.35) higher risk of death compared with children at nonprofit facilities in adjusted analyses accounting for the competing risk of transplant. When follow-up was extended regardless of transplant status, the risk of death remained higher for children treated in profit facilities (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.35-1.61). Lower access to transplant in profit facilities mediated 67% of the association between facility profit status and risk of death (95% CI, 45%-100%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Given the higher risk of death associated with profit dialysis facilities that is partially mediated by lower access to transplant, the study's findings indicate a need to identify root causes and targeted interventions that can improve mortality outcomes for children treated in these facilities.

Practicing health equity in involuntary discharges to overcome disparities in dialysis and kidney patient care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Potential causes and consequences of involuntary discharge (IVD) of patients from dialysis facilities are widely unknown. So, also are the extent of racial disparities in IVDs and their impact on health equity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Under the current End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) programConditions for Coverage (CFC), there are limited justifications for IVDs. The ESRD Networks oversee dialysis quality and safety including IVDs in US dialysis facilities, with support from the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ) and other stakeholders. Whereas black Americans constitute a third of US dialysis patients, they are even more overrepresented in the planned and executed IVDs. Cultural gaps between patients and dialysis staff, psychosocial and regional factors, structural racism in kidney care, antiquated ESRD policies, unintended consequences of quality incentive programs, other perverse incentives, and failed patient-provider communications are among potential contributors to IVDs.

SUMMARY

Practicing health equity in kidney care may be negatively impacted by IVDs. Accurate analyses of patterns and trends of involuntary discharges, along with insights from well designed AHRQ surveys and qualitative research with mixed method approaches are urgently needed. Pilot and feasibility programs should be designed and tested, to address the root causes of IVDs and related racial disparities.

Online Reviews of Hemodialysis Centers Correlate With Medicare and Medicaid Survey Measures of Patient Experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient experience in outpatient hemodialysis has been shown to be significantly correlated with health outcomes. The current gold standard for assessing patient experience in outpatient hemodialysis is the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS). Online reviews of outpatient hemodialysis centers could potentially serve as an additional source of information regarding patient experience, but they have not been well validated. This study aims to determine whether overall scores and subscores from patient-authored online reviews of outpatient dialysis centers are correlated with current gold standard survey-based measures of patient experience in outpatient hemodialysis.

METHODS

All reviews of hemodialysis centers posted to the online review site CiteHealth.com between March 2008 and October 2019 were collected (1081 reviews of 762 centers). Publicly-available ICH-CAHPS survey summary data and End Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program (ESRD QIP) summary data from May 2016 to October 2019 were obtained from the Dialysis Facility Compare website. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between facilities' mean online review overall scores and subscores within a given year and their ICH-CAHPS ratings from the same year. Statistical significance was assessed with a 2-tailed permutation test. A Bonferroni correction for multiple hypothesis testing was applied.

RESULTS

The mean "Overall" score from CiteHealth.com had a significant positive correlation with the "Center Care Quality," "Staff," and "Facility" scores from ICH-CAHPS surveys. No significant correlation could be found between the mean "Overall" CiteHealth.com score and any other ICH-CAHPS patient satisfaction metric. There was a significant positive correlation between the mean CiteHealth.com "Center" score and the ICH-CAHPS "Center Care Quality" score, the mean CiteHealth.com "Facility" score and the ICH-CAHPS "Facility" score, and the mean CiteHealth.com "Staff" score and the ICH-CAHPS "Staff" score. No significant correlation was found between the mean CiteHealth.com "Nephrologist" score and the ICH-CAHPS "Nephrologist" score. No significant correlation was found between online review scores and ESRD QIP health outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

Certain components of online reviews are significantly correlated with ICH-CAHPS measures of patient experience. Additionally, online reviews come with narrative comments that can offer specific insights into positive and negative aspects of patient care that cannot always be elucidated by numeric survey questions. Online reviews may have utility as an adjunctive source of information to patient experience surveys such as the ICH-CAHPS.

Changes in Dialysis Center Quality Associated With the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program : An Observational Study With a Regression Discontinuity Design

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started levying performance-based financial penalties against outpatient dialysis centers under the mandatory End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether penalization was associated with improvement in dialysis center quality.

DESIGN

Leveraging the threshold for penalization (total performance score < 60), a regression discontinuity design was used to examine the effect of penalization on quality over 2 years. Publicly available Medicare data from 2015-2018 were used. The effect of penalization at dialysis centers with different characteristics (for example, size or chain affiliation) was also examined.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Outpatient dialysis centers (n = 5830).

MEASUREMENTS

Dialysis center total performance scores (a composite metric ranging from 0 to 100 based on clinical quality and adherence to reporting requirements) and individual measures that contribute to the total performance score.

RESULTS

There were 1109 (19.0%) outpatient dialysis centers that received penalties in 2017 on the basis of performance in 2015. Penalized centers were located in ZIP codes with a higher average proportion of non-White residents (36.4% vs. 31.2%; P < 0.001) and residents with lower median income ($49 290 vs. $51 686; P < 0.001). Penalization was not associated with improvement in total performance scores in 2017 (0.4 point [95% CI, -2.5 to 3.2 points]) or 2018 (0.3 point [CI, -2.8 to 3.4 points]). This was consistent across dialysis centers with different characteristics. There was also no association between penalization and improvement in specific measures.

LIMITATION

The study could not account for how centers respond to penalization.

CONCLUSION

Penalization under the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program was not associated with improvement in the quality of outpatient dialysis centers.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Patient-Reported Experiences with Dialysis Care and Provider Visit Frequency

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

New payment models resulting from the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative may create incentives for nephrologists to focus less on face-to-face in-center hemodialysis visits. This study aimed to understand whether more frequent nephrology practitioner dialysis visits improved patient experience and could help inform future policy.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

In a cross-sectional study of patients receiving dialysis from April 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016, we linked patient records from a national kidney failure registry to patient experience data from the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. We used a multivariable mixed effects linear regression model to examine the association between nephrology practitioner visit frequency and patient-reported experiences with nephrologist care.

RESULTS

Among 5125 US dialysis facilities, 2981 (58%) had ≥30 In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys completed between April 2015 and January 2016, and 243,324 patients receiving care within these facilities had Medicare Parts A/B coverage. Face-to-face practitioner visits per month were 71% with four or more visits, 17% with two to three visits, 4% with one visit, and 8% with no visits. Each 10% absolute greater proportion of patients seen by their nephrology practitioner(s) four or more times per month was associated with a modestly but statistically significant lower score of patient experience with nephrologist care by -0.3 points (95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.1) and no effect on experience with other domains of dialysis care.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of patient experiences at the dialysis facility level, frequent nephrology practitioner visits to facilities where patients undergo outpatient hemodialysis were not associated with better patient experiences.

An Evidence-Based Theory About PRO Use in Kidney Care: A Realist Synthesis

BACKGROUND

There is international interest on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in nephrology.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to develop a kidney-specific program theory about use of PROs in nephrology that may enhance person-centered care, both at individual and aggregated levels of care, and to test and refine this theory through a systematic review of the empirical literature. Together, these objectives articulate what works or does not work, for whom, and why.

METHODS

Realist synthesis methodology guided the electronic database and gray literature searches (in January 2017 and October 2018), screening, and extraction conducted independently by three reviewers. Sources included all nephrology patients and/or practitioners. Through a process of extraction and synthesis, each included source was examined to assess how contexts may trigger mechanisms to influence specific outcomes.

RESULTS

After screening 19,961 references, 84 theoretical and 34 empirical sources were used. PROs are proposed to be useful for providing nephrology care through three types of use. The first type is use of individual-level PRO data at point of care, receiving the majority of theoretical and empirical explorations. Clinician use to support person-centered care, and patient use to support patient engagement, are purported to improve satisfaction, health, and quality of life. Contextual factors specific to the kidney care setting that may influence the use of PRO data include the complexity of kidney disease symptom burden, symptoms that may be stigmatized, comorbidities, and time or administrative constraints in dialysis settings. Electronic collection of PROs may facilitate PRO use given these contexts. The second type is use of aggregated PRO data at point of care, including public reporting of PROs to inform decisions at point of care and improve quality of care, and use of PROs for treatment decisions. The third type is use of aggregated PRO data by organizations, including publicly available PRO data to compare centers. In single-payer systems, regular collection of PROs by dialysis centers can be achieved through economic incentives. Both the second and third types of PRO use include pressures that may trigger quality improvement processes.

CONCLUSION

The current state of the evidence is primarily theoretical. There is pressing need for empirical research to improve the evidence-base of PRO use at individual and aggregated levels of nephrology care.

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.

Health Policy for Dialysis Care in Canada and the United States

Contemporary dialysis treatment for chronic kidney failure is complex, is associated with poor clinical outcomes, and leads to high health costs, all of which pose substantial policy challenges. Despite similar policy goals and universal access for their kidney failure programs, the United States and Canada have taken very different approaches to dealing with these challenges. While US dialysis care is primarily government funded and delivered predominantly by private for-profit providers, Canadian dialysis care is also government funded but delivered almost exclusively in public facilities. Differences also exist for regulatory mechanisms and the policy incentives that may influence the behavior of providers and facilities. These differences in health policy are associated with significant variation in clinical outcomes: mortality among patients on dialysis is consistently lower in Canada than in the United States, although the gap has narrowed in recent years. The observed heterogeneity in policy and outcomes offers important potential opportunities for each health system to learn from the other. This article compares and contrasts transnational dialysis-related health policies, focusing on key levers including payment, finance, regulation, and organization. We also describe how policy levers can incentivize favorable practice patterns to support high-quality/high-value, person-centered care and to catalyze the emergence of transformative technologies for alternative kidney replacement strategies.

[Routine collection of perceived health data in the era of payment for quality: Recommendations by the Epidemiology and public health commission of the SFNDT]

In France, the method of financing is mainly based on the quantity of care produced. The fixed-rate financing of patients with chronic kidney disease at stage IV or V introduces the notion of payment to quality. Part of the quality assessment will focus on the patients' feelings about their care. The objective of this paper is to assess these indicators used in nephrology, markers in their own right of the quality of care. The patients reported outcomes measures considering the impact of illness or care and the Patient Reported Experience Measures considering their perception of their experience with the health care system or care pathway, are broader than quality of life. These PROs are measured using standardized and validated questionnaires, generic or specific. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology initiative has shown that PROs, too often neglected in favor of biological criteria, are instead favored by patients. In the context of a broad deployment of monitoring the quality of life for the purpose of evaluation of care, outside research protocol, the Commission recommends one of the following 2 tools: EuroQol 5D and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, a compromise between feasibility and relevance and e-SATIS given its great use in health facilities, with an annual follow-up.

Using Patient Experience Survey Data to Improve In-Center Hemodialysis Care: A Practical Review

Patient experience is an integral aspect of the care we deliver to our dialysis patients. Standardized evaluation of patient experience with in-center hemodialysis started in the United States in 2012 with the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) survey. Over time there have been a few changes to this survey, how it is administered, and how it fits within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program. Although the importance of this survey has been growing, knowledge of this survey among nephrologists has lagged. We provide a review of the survey development and how its use has evolved since 2012. We discuss in detail research done on this survey to date, including survey psychometric evaluation. We highlight gaps in our knowledge that need further research and end with general recommendations to improve patient experience within hemodialysis facilities, which we believe is a worthy goal for all members of the dialysis team.

Person-centered peritoneal dialysis prescription and the role of shared decision-making

Person-centered care has become a dominant paradigm in modern health care. It needs to be applied to people with end-stage kidney disease considering the initiation of dialysis and to peritoneal dialysis (PD) prescription and care delivery. It is relevant to their decisions about goals of care, transplantation, palliative care, and discontinuation of dialysis. It is also relevant to decisions about how PD is delivered, including options such as incremental PD. Shared decision-making is the essence of this process and needs to become a standard principle of care. It requires engagement, education, and empowerment of patients. Patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported experience are also central to person-centered care in PD.

Consolidation in dialysis Markets-Causes, consequences, and the role of policy

The dialysis industry is one of the most highly concentrated healthcare sectors in the United States. Despite decades of growth in the number of patients with end-stage renal disease and in the size of dialysis markets, two large dialysis organizations currently care for more than two-thirds of the dialysis population. Economies of scale, bargaining leverage with suppliers and private insurers, barriers to entry, and government regulations have contributed to highly concentrated dialysis markets by conferring advantages to larger organizations. Consolidated dialysis markets have coincided with both positive and negative trends in healthcare costs and outcomes. Costs per patient receiving dialysis have grown at a slower rate than per capita Medicare costs, while access to dialysis care remains available across a wide socioeconomic range. Mortality rates have declined despite a sicker dialysis patient population. Yet, concerns remain about the cost and quality of dialysis care. Evidence suggests that chain ownership, for profit status, and less market competition may negatively impact health outcomes. Future policies and innovations involving kidney health may temporarily disrupt consolidation. However, if the underlying mechanisms that contributed to past consolidation persist, dialysis markets may remain highly concentrated over the long term.

Conflicts of interest in dialysis: A barrier to policy reforms

Conflicts of interest involving physicians are commonplace in the US, occurring across many different specialties and subspecialties in a variety of clinical settings. In nephrology, two important scenarios in which conflicts of interest arise are dialysis facility joint venture (JV) arrangements and financial participation in End-stage Kidney Disease Seamless Care Organizations (ESCOs). Whether conflicts of interest occurring in either of these settings influence decision-making or patient care outcomes is not known due to a lack of transparent, publicly available information, and opportunities to conduct independent study. We discuss possible benefits and risks of nephrologist's financial participation in JVs and ESCOs and possible mechanisms for disclosure and reporting of such arrangements as well as risk mitigation.

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.

U.S. Health Care in the Trump Era: A Data Update

We present a summary of recent studies and data regarding the state of health and health care in the United States. Health care remains unaffordable to many Americans, including many with insurance. Health outcomes are stagnating or deteriorating. Police killings disproportionately target minority men. The search for profits from prescription drug companies, medical device firms, and for-profit medical providers places patients at risk. The public Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs, which increasingly subcontract with private managed care insurers, now account for the majority of private insurers’ total business. Insurance firms continue to avoid unprofitable enrollees and impose a mounting bureaucratic burden on medical providers. Meanwhile, recent polls show mounting public support for single-payer national health insurance.

Hemodialysis patient characteristics associated with better experience as measured by the In-center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) survey

BACKGROUND

Patient experience in hemodialysis (HD) is measured twice yearly in all in-center HD patients in the United States using the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) survey. Survey scores are publically available and incorporated into the dialysis payment system. Despite its importance, little is known about factors associated with better experience scores. We studied the association between patient-level characteristics and experience scores in a large real-world cohort of HD patients.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional analysis of ICH CAHPS administration in 2012. All in-center HD patients in Dialysis Clinic, Incorporated facilities nationally over 18 years old and receiving HD at their facility for at least 3 months were eligible. Predictors include patient demographic, clinical, and treatment-related characteristics. Outcomes include high global rating scores across three domains (Nephrologist, Dialysis Staff, Dialysis Center) and high composite scores across three domains (Nephrologists' Communication and Caring, Quality of Dialysis Center Care and Operations, and Providing Information to Patients).

RESULTS

Among 3369 respondents, older age and telephone (vs. mail) administration of the survey were associated with higher global ratings, while shortened HD treatments were associated with lower global ratings. Lower education and telephone administration were associated with higher composite scores, while older age, and shortened HD treatments were associated with lower composite scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Several patient characteristics and mode of survey administration are associated with higher experience scores. Future research should assess HD facility characteristics associated with higher scores and interventions that might improve experience accounting for these associations.