A Patient Decision Aid About Conservative Kidney Management in Advanced Kidney Disease: A Randomized Pilot Trial

Choosing conservative care in advanced chronic kidney disease: a scoping review of patients' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Conservative care (CC) is a viable treatment option for some patients with kidney failure. Choosing between dialysis and CC can be a complex decision in which involvement of patients is desirable. Gaining insight into the experiences and preferences of patients regarding this decision-making process is an important initial step to improve care. We aimed to identify what is known about the perspective of patients regarding decision-making when considering CC.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched on 23 February 2023 for qualitative and quantitative studies on patient-reported experiences on decision-making about CC. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Twenty articles were included. We identified three major themes: creating awareness about disease and treatment choice, decision support and motivation to choose CC. Patients were often not aware of the option to choose CC. Patients felt supported by their loved ones during the decision-making process, although they perceived they made the final decision to choose CC themselves. Some patients felt pressured by their healthcare professional to choose dialysis. Reported reasons to choose CC were maintaining quality of life, treatment burden of dialysis, cost and the desire not to be a burden to others. In general, patients were satisfied with their decision for CC.

CONCLUSIONS

By focussing on the perspective of patients, we identified a wide range of patient experiences and preferences regarding the decision-making process. These findings can help to improve the complex decision-making process between dialysis and CC and to provide patient-centred care.

Patient Risk-Benefit Preferences for Transcatheter Versus Surgical Mitral Valve Repair

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) of mitral regurgitation is less invasive than surgery but has greater 5-year mortality and reintervention risks, and leads to smaller improvements in physical functioning. The study objective was to quantify patient preferences for risk-benefit trade-offs associated with TEER and surgery.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to patients with mitral regurgitation. Attributes included procedure type; 30-day mortality risk; 5-year mortality risk and physical functioning for 5 years; number of hospitalizations in the next 5 years; and risk of additional surgery in the next 5 years. A mixed-logit regression model was fit to estimate preference weights. Two hundred one individuals completed the survey: 63% were female and mean age was 74 years. On average, respondents preferred TEER over surgery. To undergo a less invasive procedure (ie, TEER), respondents would accept up to a 13.3% (95% CI, 8.7%-18.5%) increase in reintervention risk above a baseline of 10%, 4.6 (95% CI, 3.1-6.2) more hospitalizations above a baseline of 1, a 10.7% (95% CI, 6.5%-14.5%) increase in 5-year mortality risk above a baseline of 20%, or more limited physical functioning representing nearly 1 New York Heart Association class (0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.1]) over 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in general preferred TEER over surgery. When holding constant all other factors, a functional improvement from New York Heart Association class III to class I maintained over 5 years would be needed, on average, for patients to prefer surgery over TEER.

A National Survey of Conservative Kidney Management Practices for Patients Who Forgo RRT

Key Points

In the largest survey of US nephrology providers on conservative kidney management (CKM), most reported limited experience with CKM and varied approaches and local resources to provide CKM. There is need to enhance provider training and surveillance of CKM practices and to develop models of CKM that optimize care delivery and outcomes for these patients.

Background

Clinical practice guidelines advocate for conservative kidney management (CKM), a planned, holistic, patient-centered approach to caring for patients who forgo initiation of RRT. Little is known about the extent to which current care practices meet these expectations.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a national sample of nephrology providers recruited through US professional societies between March and July 2022 and inquired about their experiences with caring for patients who forgo RRT and their capacity to provide CKM.

Results

Overall, 203 nephrology providers (age 47±12 years, 53.2% White, 66.0% female), of which 49.8% were nephrologists and 50.2% advanced practice providers, completed the survey. Most (70.3%) reported that <10% of their practice comprised patients who had forgone RRT. Most indicated that they always or often provided symptom management (81.8%), multidisciplinary care (68.0%), tools to support shared decision making about treatment of advanced kidney disease (66.3%), and psychological support (52.2%) to patients who forgo RRT, while less than half reported that they always or often provided staff training on the care of these patients (47.8%) and spiritual support (41.4%). Most providers reported always or often working with primary care (72.9%), palliative medicine (68.8%), hospice (62.6%), social work (58.1%), and dietitian (50.7%) services to support these patients, while only a minority indicated that they always or often offered chaplaincy (23.2%), physical and/or occupational therapy (22.8%), psychology or psychiatry (31.5%), and geriatric medicine (28.1%).

Conclusions

Many nephrology providers have limited experience with caring for patients who forgo RRT. Our findings highlight opportunities to optimize comprehensive CKM care for these patients.

Pathways Project Pragmatic Lessons Learned: Integrating Supportive Care Best Practices into Real-World Kidney Care

Key Points

A multisite quality improvement project using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement learning collaborative structure helped kidney care teams identify seriously ill patients and implement supportive care best practices. Helpful approaches included needs assessment, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement tools, peer exchange, clinician role modeling, data feedback, and technical assistance. Dialysis center teams tailored implementation of best practices into routine dialysis workflows with nephrologist prerogative to delegate goals of care conversations to nurse practitioners and social workers.

Background

Despite two decades of national and international guidelines urging greater availability of kidney supportive care (KSC), uptake in the United States has been slow. We conducted a multisite quality improvement project with ten US dialysis centers to foster implementation of three KSC best practices. This article shares pragmatic lessons learned by the project organizers.

Methods

The project team engaged in reflection to distill key lessons about what did or did not work in implementing KSC.

Results

The seven key lessons are (1 ) systematically assess KSC needs; (2 ) prioritize both the initial practices to be implemented and the patients who have the most urgent needs; (3 ) use a multifaceted approach to bolster communication skills, including in-person role modeling and mentoring; (4 ) empower nurse practitioners and social workers to conduct advance care planning through teamwork and warm handoffs; (5 ) provide tailored technical assistance to help sites improve documentation and electronic health record processes for storing advance care planning information; (6 ) coach dialysis centers in how to use required Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement processes to improve KSC; and (7 ) implement systematic approaches to support patients who choose active medical management without dialysis.

Conclusions

Treatment of patients with kidney disease is provided in a complex system, especially when considered across the continuum, from CKD to kidney failure on dialysis, and at the end of life. Even among enthusiastic early adopters of KSC, 18 months was insufficient time to implement the three prioritized KSC best practices. Concentrating on a few key practices helped teams focus and see progress in targeted areas. However, effect for patients was attenuated because federal policy and financial incentives are not aligned with KSC best practices and goals.

Clinical Trial registry name and registration number

Pathways Project: KSC, NCT04125537 .