Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision Making in Vascular Access Selection: A Qualitative Study

Decision-Making Engagement Preferences among Older Adults with CKD

Key Points

Background

Older adults with kidney failure face preference-sensitive decisions regarding dialysis initiation. Despite recommendations, few older patients with kidney failure experience shared decision making. Clinician uncertainty about the degree to which older patients prefer to engage in decision making remains a key barrier.

Methods

This study follows a mixed-methods explanatory, longitudinal, sequential design at four diverse US centers with patients (English-fluent, aged ≥70 years, CKD stages 4–5, nondialysis) from 2018 to 2020. Patient preferences for engagement in decision making were assessed using the Control Preferences Scale, reflecting the degree to which patients want to be involved in their decision making: active (the patient prefers to make the final decision), collaborative (the patient wants to share decision making with the clinician), or passive (the patient wants the clinician to make the final decision) roles. Semistructured interviews about engagement and decision making were conducted in two waves (2019, 2020) with purposively sampled patients and clinicians. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA were used for quantitative analyses; thematic and narrative analyses were used for qualitative data.

Results

Among 363 patient participants, mean age was 78±6 years, 42% were female, and 21% had a high school education or less. Control Preferences Scale responses reflected that patients preferred to engage actively (48%) or collaboratively (43%) versus passively (8%). Preferred roles remained stable at 3-month follow-up. Seventy-six participants completed interviews (45 patients, 31 clinicians). Four themes emerged: control preference roles reflect levels of decisional engagement; clinicians control information flow, especially about prognosis; adapting a clinical approach to patient preferred roles; and clinicians' responsiveness to patient preferred roles supports patients' satisfaction with shared decision making.

Conclusions

Most older adults with advanced CKD preferred a collaborative or active role in decision making. Appropriately matched information flow with patient preferences was critical for satisfaction with shared decision making.

Clinical Trial registry name and registration number:

Decision Aid for Renal Therapy (DART), NCT03522740.

Patient Perspectives on Clotting in the Extracorporeal Circuit and Decision-Making Regarding Anticoagulation Therapy

Clotting of the extracorporeal circuit is a complication in the process of hemodialysis that can result in missed or shortened dialysis sessions, higher nursing workload, and elevated cost of treatment. Repercussions of inadequate dialysis may include patient blood loss, fluid overload, build-up of minerals, higher hospitalization rates, and poor quality of life, contributing to increased patient distress. Preventing clotting through anticoagulation therapy is the key to maintaining patency of the dialysis circuit and supporting dialysis adequacy. Despite the severe consequences of clotting in the extracorporeal circuit patients encounter, their perspectives on decision-making regarding anticoagulation therapy are not well known. In this article, we discuss patients' perspectives and priorities around clotting and anticoagulation therapy and outline ways to support their treatment through shared decision-making. Insights into patients' perspectives on addressing thrombotic complications of the extracorporeal circuit can inform strategies to improve care and outcomes for patients receiving hemodialysis.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Patient-Centered Research and Innovation in Nephrology

Patient involvement in research can improve the relevance of research, consequently enhancing the recruitment, retention, and uptake of interventions and policies impacting patient outcomes. Despite this, patients are not often involved in the design and conduct of research. The research agenda and innovations are frequently determined by the interest of health and industry professionals rather than proactively aligning with the priorities of patients. It is now being encouraged and recommended to engage patients in research priority setting to ensure interventions and trials report outcomes valuable to patients, moving away from a history of overlooking the outcomes that reflect the feel and function of patients. Involving patients ensures constant innovative research in nephrology, as this broader depth of evidence fortifies reliability and validity through knowledge gained from lived experience. Findings from such research can enhance clinical practice and strengthen decision-making and policy to support better outcomes. We aim to outline principles and strategies for patient involvement in research, including setting research priorities, identifying and designing interventions, selecting outcomes, and disseminating and translating research. Principles and strategies including engagement, education and training, empowerment, and connection and community provide guidance in patient involvement. There are increasing efforts to involve patients across all stages of research including setting research priorities. Efforts are rising to involve patients across all stages of research including priority setting, identifying and designing interventions, selecting outcomes, and dissemination and translation. Patient involvement throughout the research cycle drives innovative investigations ensuring funding, efforts, and resources are directed toward priorities of patients, contributing to catalyst advancements in care and outcomes.

Alignment Among Patient, Caregiver, and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Hemodialysis Vascular Access Decision-Making: A Qualitative Study

Background

Updates to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access emphasize the "right access, in the right patient, at the right time, for the right reasons." Although this implies a collaborative approach, little is known about how patients, their caregivers, and health care providers engage in vascular access (VA) decision-making.

Objective

To explore how the perspectives of patients receiving hemodialysis, their caregivers, and hemodialysis care team align and diverge in relation to VA selection.

Design

Qualitative descriptive study.

Setting

Five outpatient hemodialysis centers in Calgary, Alberta.

Participants

Our purposive sample included 19 patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, 2 caregivers, and 21 health care providers (7 hemodialysis nurses, 6 VA nurses, and 8 nephrologists).

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with consenting participants. Using an inductive thematic analysis approach, we coded transcripts in duplicate and characterized themes addressing our research objective.

Results

While participants across roles shared some perspectives related to VA decision-making, we identified areas where views diverged. Areas of alignment included (1) optimizing patient preparedness-acknowledging decisional readiness and timing, and (2) value placed on trusting relationships with the kidney care team-respecting decisional autonomy with guidance. Perspectives diverged in the following aspects: (1) differing VA priorities and preferences-patients' emphasis on minimizing disruptions to normalcy contrasted with providers' preferences for fistulas and optimizing biomedical parameters of dialysis; (2) influence of personal and peer experience-patients preferred pragmatic, experiential knowledge, whereas providers emphasized informational credibility; and (3) endpoints for VA review-reassessment of VA decisions was prompted by access dissatisfaction for patients and a medical imperative to achieve a functioning access for health care providers.

Limitations

Participation was limited to individuals comfortable communicating in English and from urban, in-center hemodialysis units. Few informal caregivers of people receiving hemodialysis and younger patients participated in this study.

Conclusions

Although patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers share perspectives on important aspects of VA decisions, conflicting priorities and preferences may impact the decisional outcome. Findings highlight opportunities to bridge knowledge and readiness gaps and integrate shared decision-making in the VA selection process.

Shared decision-making for renal replacement treatment and illness perception in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Current healthcare trends emphasize the use of shared decision-making (SDM) for renal replacement treatment (RRT) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This is crucial to understand the relationship between SDM and illness perception of CKD patients. Few studies have focused on SDM and illness perception status of CKD patients and the impact of illness perception on RRT after SDM.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we used a questionnaire with purposive sampling from March 2019 to February 2020 at the nephrology outpatient department of a medical center in southern Taiwan. The nephrology medical team in this study used the SHARE five-step model of SDM to communicate with the patients about RRT and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ) was applied to evaluate illness perception of these patients at the beginning of SDM. According to the SDM decision time, the study participants were classified general and delayed SDM groups. The distribution between SDM groups was estimated using independent two sample t-test, chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. The correlation between illness perception and SDM decision time were illustrated and evaluated using Spearman's correlation test. A p-value less than 0.05 is statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients were enrolled in this study. The average time to make a dialysis decision after initiating SDM was 166.2 ± 178.1 days. 51 patients were classified as general group, and 24 patients were classified as delayed group. The median SDM decision time of delayed group were significantly longer than general group (56 vs. 361 days, P < 0.001). Our findings revealed that delayed group was significantly characterized with not created early surgical assess (delayed vs. general: 66.7% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.001) compared to general group. The average BIPQ score was 54.0 ± 8.1 in our study. We classified the patients into high and low illness perception group according to the median score of BIPQ. The total score of BIPQ in overall participants might increase by the SDM decision time (rho = 0.83, p = 0.830) and the linear regression line also showed consistent trends between BIPQ and SDM decision time in correspond cohorts. However, no statistically significant findings were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients with advanced chronic kidney disease took an average of five and a half months to make a RRT decision after undergoing SDM. Although there is no statistical significance, the trend of illness perception seems correlated with decision-making time. The stronger the illness perception, the longer the decision-making time. Furthermore, shorter decision times may be associated with earlier establishment of surgical access. We need more research exploring the relationship between illness perception and SDM for RRT in CKD patients.